Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

SUMMER TIME ORDER, 1952

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. HENRY STUDHOLME) reported Her Majesty's Answers to Addresses, as follow:

I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order, 1952, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947.

I will comply with your request.

RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (TRAINING AND EXTENSION) ORDER, 1952

I have received your Address praying that the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act Extension Order, 1952, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

MEMBERS SWORN

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

Michael O'Neill, Esquire, for MidUlster.

Cahir Healy, Esquire, for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday, 3rd March, at Seven o'Clock.

EALING CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

SCOTTISH MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL

"to re-incorporate the Scottish Mutual Assurance Society; to provide for the control and management of the Society as a Mutual Assurance Society and for the conversion of its share capital into stock; to confer further powers on the Society; and for other purposes," read the First time; to be read a Second time.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

PETITION

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I desire to present a humble Petition signed by 29 employees of British Road Services at the Symington Depot in the Constituency of Lanark.
The Petition shows that they foresee hardship and road safety hazards, in a decision by the Road Haulage Executive to remove 9 trucks to Carfin and close their Depot, adding two or more hours' travelling time to the burden of their 11 hour run as truck-drivers.
This is done in breach of pledges passed to me, their Parliamentary Representative, by the Chairman of the Road Haulage Executive, and the Chairman of the Transport Commission, the latter of whom has refused to receive me.
The Petition ends with the prayer:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the decision of the Road Haulage Executive to remove vehicles from Symington and diminish or close the depot be reversed.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRICT NURSES (POWERED CYCLES)

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of Health if he will make arrangements for motor engines, such as "Cycle-masters" or "Minimotors," to be fitted to the bicycles of district nurses.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): This is entirely a matter for the local authorities.

Miss Burton: Would the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the local authorities to recommend this, because Coventry district nurses have written to me to say that very hard work is involved in pedalling a push bike along and having a heavy patient to massage and turn over after that effort?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Dentures and Spectacles (Estimates)

Mr. James MacColl: asked the Minister of Health how actual expenditure, to the nearest convenient date, upon the provision of dentures and spectacles by the National Health Service compares with the revised estimates submitted by his predecessor after the institution of charges for these articles.

Mr. Crookshank: The revised estimates were for the whole of the financial year, and no separate estimate was submitted for the provision of dentures. It seems probable that expenditure on the general dental services as a whole will be about equal to the estimate, while that on the supplementary ophthalmic services will be about £5 million below.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of that in pounds or in proportion relates to Scotland, where they generally see things very clearly.

Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir.

Hospital, Cardiff (Retirement)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now completed his inquiries into the action of the Ely Hospital Committee, Cardiff, in enforcing the retirement of Mr. David Roberts.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the Committee acted properly in the matter.

Infirmary, Bangor (Strike)

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the widespread concern about the situation at the Caernarvonshire and Anglesey General Infirmary, Bangor, culminating recently in a strike by the nursing staff; and if he will institute a full inquiry into all aspects of the matter, including the functioning of the Hospital Management Committee for the area and the administration of this hospital in particular.

Mr. Crookshank: I am aware of this incident and have asked the Regional Hospital Board for a report. I will consider when I have received it whether further action on my part is desirable.

Children, Cardiff (Eye Treatment)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that children in Cardiff needing operative treatment for their eyes have to wait as long as three years before being admitted to hospital; and what steps he is taking to deal with this problem.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. I am informed that the Welsh Regional Hospital Board and the Board of Governors of the United Cardiff Hospitals are considering measures to increase the facilities available.

Mr. Thomas: Can the Minister say whether it will be possible to allocate more beds for this type of case in the near rather than in the distant future?

Mr. Crookshank: I do not know which future is involved, but plans are being considered for increasing the number of beds.

Mr. Thomas: It is very urgent.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Health how many applications for hearing aids to be supplied under the National Health Service in England and Wales were outstanding at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Crookshank: The number was 110,215, on 31st August last.

Mr. Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these applicants have been waiting? For example, what is the earliest completion date, or the average completion date?

Mr. Crookshank: I could not possibly do that without notice. I can say, however, that out of the figure outstanding in August something like 25,000 have since been supplied.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister say whether those on the waiting list who have actually been examined for hearing aid will have to pay the new proposed charge for that aid?

Mr. Crookshank: I think we had better wait until we come to the Bill to discuss that question.

Miss Alice Bacon: Can the Minister say how many of those on the waiting list are waiting for the bone conduction type of hearing aid, which is not yet available?

Mr. Crookshank: I really could not on a Question which only asks me for a total.

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Minister of Health what was the cost of supplying hearing aids under the National Health Service in England and Wales in the financial year 1950–51; what is the estimated cost in the current financial year, on the assumption that full charge is borne by the National Health Service; and what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer resulting from the proposed charge to applicants in a full financial year.

Mr. Crookshank: In 1950–51 the cost of instruments purchased—excluding batteries for electrical hearing aids—was £327,000. The revised estimate for the current financial year is £545,000. The proposed charges are estimated to produce about £61,500 in a full year.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in view of the comparatively small sum involved he ought to withdraw this quite preposterous charge?

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Will the Minister say whether this estimate includes charging those who are on the present waiting list?

Mr. Crookshank: It is the estimate of the expenditure for the current financial year.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: asked the Minister of Health in view of the long delay in providing patients with deaf aids of the type at present provided under the National Insurance Scheme, what new types are being developed to meet the needs of persons in cases of urgency; and how long it will be before they are available.

Mr. Crookshank: The only new type of hearing aid being developed for the National Health Service is a bone conduction type, and I cannot yet say when this will be available. The vast majority of deaf people need air-conduction aids, and the development of new types would not shorten the waiting period for them.

Mr. Baldwin: As many of the old people who are now waiting for hearing aids will probably not live long enough to receive them and as there are aids on the market which they could purchase forthwith, would my right hon. Friend consider making them a grant equivalent to the cost of the aid which is supplied under the National Health Service so that they may immediately buy a hearing aid?

Mr. Crookshank: All I would say in reply to that is that the present aid which is being used is considered to be the best for the purposes.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Minister of Health if he will continue the provision of hearing aids for children without payment.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the appreciation of that answer?

Mr. John Profumo: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mr. E. W. Drury, an old-age pensioner, 7, New Street, Stratford-on-Avon, has been waiting for a hearing aid for over 12 months and has been informed that he will probably have to wait for a further six months before receiving the appliance; what are the reasons which are causing such delay in the supply of hearing aids; and to what extent Mr. Drury's circumstances are typical of the majority of elderly people requiring these appliances.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. The delay here, as elsewhere, is due to the large accumulated demand, but the greatly increased numbers of aids now being distributed should lead to a marked reduction in the time of waiting.

Mr. Profumo: During the further period of waiting which will be necessary would my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that they should be given a grant to enable them to buy these aids on the open market?

Mr. Crookshank: No, I really think it is better to give people, even if they have to wait a little longer, the best possible appliances.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if they wait only a little longer they will have to pay for them, whereas if they had got them when they applied for them they would have had them free? Does he think it fair to penalise in this way people who have been waiting for a long time and who are not themselves in any way responsible for the delay? In the proposals he is now considering will he make an exemption in favour of those whose application for hearing aids has been outstanding for a considerable time?

Mr. Crookshank: This is Question time. I submit that this is not the time to announce decisions of policy arising out of supplementary questions, but, of course, I take note of all the suggestions which are made to me in this House.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that whilst what he says is true, one of the most substantial elements of Question time is that Members have the opportunity to examine Ministers and to put supplementary questions of a critical character which Ministers ought to answer?

Mr. Crookshank: I said I would take notice of the questions. It is not necessary to answer supplementary questions which do not necessarily arise.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Profumo: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member desire to raise a point of order?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir. In view of the fact that I am satisfied with the answer to the Question which I put down —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—well, if after I have considered the answer I am not satisfied I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Shinwell: The Minister has just stated that he could not deal with questions of policy in reply to supplementary questions, but did he not make a statement of policy in relation to identity cards in reply to Questions?

Mr. Baldwin: On a point of order. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo), has given notice that he will raise this matter on the Adjournment—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the point of order.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford, who asked this Question, has given notice that he will raise this matter on the Adjournment is any further supplementary question in order?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo), who asked the Question, gave a conditional notice that if he were not satisfied he would raise the point. That is not quite good enough.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order, Sir. The Minister has just attempted to lay down a principle about making statements of policy in reply to supplementary questions. In reply to Question No. 25—

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr. Speaker: We really are wasting too much time over this. The hon. and learned Gentleman has so far disclosed no point of order. He has disclosed a matter of his own complaint against the Minister, but that is not for me to deal with.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. In view of the fact that I am not at all satisfied with the failure to get any answer at all to my supplementary question, may I give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Miss Irene Ward: Is it not constitutionally correct that a Minister has a right not to answer a question if he so desires?

Mr. Speaker: That is certainly so.

Spectacle Frames

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Health (1) the approximate length of time spectacle frames supplied under the National Health Act are estimated by his Department to last if they are treated with reasonable care;
(2) the approximate length of time spectacle frames supplied under the National Health Act are estimated to last if they are treated with reasonable care.

Mr. Crookshank: It is impossible to give any general estimate.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would my right hon. Friend consider drawing the attention of the industry to the need to preserve spectacle frames, because people are being told when they have new lenses that it is necessary to have new frames? This is diverting money from other essential spheres of the Health Service.

Mr. Crookshank: I will certainly take note of that.

Hospital Service (Cost)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health if he will give an estimate of the increased cost of the hospital service for 1952–53, over 1951–52, due to increased prices of food and other essential hospital supplies.

Mr. Crookshank: I would ask the hon. Member to wait for the publication of the estimates next month.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that there will be no attempt to reduce the amount of the essential food supplies, in particular to hospital authorities, in view of the very disquieting announcement made by the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board?

Mr. Crookshank: I am not aware of any such suggestion.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the announcement made by the South-West Metropolitan

Regional Hospital Board regarding the amount to be made available to hospitals?

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman asked me if there was any question of cutting down the food. That is what I was talking about.

Prescription Charge

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health if he will give an estimate of the proportion of prescriptions, under 1s. in value, supplied under the National Health Service during 1951, or the latest period for which an estimate can be made.

Mr. Crookshank: It is estimated that the proportion costing the Service less than 1s. is insignificant.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose, in these cases—even if they are insignificant there are a certain number of them—to charge them more than the actual value of the prescription?

Mr. Crookshank: The 1s. charge proposed is per form and not per prescription.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: asked the Minister of Health what would be the estimated cost of exempting old-age pensioners from paying for prescriptions under the National Health Act.

Mr. Crookshank: The annual cost to the National Health Service in England and Wales might be about £1½ million.

Brigadier Clarke: Has my right hon. Friend taken into account, in making his calculations, that many old age pensioners will be driven on to National Assistance, as they are now debarred by their pride from accepting National Assistance?

Mr. Leslie Hale: Would the Leader of the House be good enough, in order to make clear that this is not a purely party question, to convey to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Brigadier Clarke) the fact that if he cares to put down an Amendment to this effect some of us on this side of the House will be able to give him support?

Brigadier Clarke: I have no intention of putting one down to help hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Hospital Administrative Staffs

Mr. Alfred Bossom: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the large increase in the numbers in the administrative staffs in relation to the numbers of beds in the voluntary hospitals since they were taken over by the National Health Service; and if he will investigate this to see if any advantage is gained by this increase, or whether it cannot be materially reduced.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. A review of these staffs is in progress, and steps are being taken to secure reductions where the review shows the need for it.

Hospitals, Northern Region

Mr. Frederick Willey: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to avoid the closing of five hospitals in the Northern Region consequent upon the reduction made by him on the estimates of a Northern Regional Hospital Board.

Mr. Crookshank: I understand that the funds to meet revenue expenditure in 1952–53 which I have now been able to allow the Board will probably obviate the closing of any of these hospitals.

Mr. Willey: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he will make the avoidance a certainty rather than a probability?

Surgical Footwear (Charge)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that some surgical boots cost from £12 to £15 a pair; that this charge is often beyond the means of the applicant, who is usually already reduced in earning power because of such disability and who may be unable to follow his occupation accordingly; and whether he will take steps to relieve such hardship.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir; it is pro-Posed to make a fixed charge of £3 a pair for surgical boots and shoes.

Mr. Freeman: Is it not obvious that this will penalise those who are the greatest sufferers? Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the whole matter in view of the very great difficulties in which these people will be placed?

Mr. Crookshank: The charge of £3 is, of course, about the cost of ordinary footwear which these persons do not have to buy.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the saving made by this charge will be very small, but that it will impose tremendous difficulty on working people to whom £3 is sometimes a week's wages? Will he look at this matter again? It is a monstrous business.

Hospital Building Work

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Health the aggregate sum of money, represented by past and current licences issued by his Department for building, reconstructing, repairing or decorating accommodation for the staffs of regional hospital boards and other administrative sections of the National Health Service.

Mr. Crookshank: The aggregate value of the authorisations or approvals issued by my Department up to the end of 1951 for building works for the provision or adaptation of office accommodation for regional hospital boards, boards of governors, hospital management committees, executive councils, joint pricing committees and the Dental Estimates Board is about £483,000. This includes the value of repairs and redecorations except in the case of the hospital authorities, who do not require authorisation for such work. The value of certain works carried out by the Ministry of Works for hospital authorities at the outset of the Service is not available and so is not included.

Dental Treatment (Charge)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the decision to charge the first £1's worth of dental treatment to the patient will result in a decrease of preventive work; and if he will, therefore, withdraw his proposed charge.

Mr. Crookshank: I will, with permission, answer this and Question No. 29 together.

Miss Burton: May I have an answer to the Questions separately, Sir? They are not the same.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Lady should wait to hear the answer.

Miss Burton: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I appreciate that the answers may be the same, but I believe that the Minister has to seek permission to answer Questions together and, if I have your permission to refuse that permission, may I have the Questions answered separately?

Mr. Speaker: I have known that done. I will watch the point. If the hon. Lady will listen to the answer and desires to ask a supplementary question for further elucidation I will see that she catches my eye.

Miss Burton: I am sorry to insist, Sir, but with great respect, do I understand from your ruling that you will allow me two supplementary questions if the questions on the Order Paper are answered together? Otherwise, can I please have the Questions answered separately?

Mr. Speaker: Can the Minister answer these Questions separately?

Mr. Crookshank: I would refer the hon. Lady to the debate on the financial and economic situation on 31st January, when I endeavoured to explain the reasons which make these and other measures necessary.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that attitude underlines the difference between the two sides of the House—that this side is anxious to prevent ill-health and that the other side has not yet got as far as that? Second, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that instead of being known as a party of conservation they will be known as a party of decay, as a result of this?

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the unnecessary suffering which will be inflicted on dental patients by his proposal that emergency treatment for the relief of pain should be charged for; and, as this cost is limited to 7s. 6d., if he will make arrangements for it to be free.

Mr. Crookshank: I would refer the hon. Lady to the debate on the financial and economic situation on 31st January, when I endeavoured to explain the reasons which make these and other measures necessary.

Miss Burton: Has the right hon. Gentleman—as I may not refer him to it—seen the reports in the Press today that he is contemplating a reduction in these charges as a result of pressure which has been brought by his own side of the House, and is there any truth in these statements?

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to base questions on newspaper comments.

S.W. Metropolitan Hospital Board (Patients' Feeding)

Mr. Norman Dodds: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware (1) of the concern caused by the decision of the South-West Metropolitan Regional Board controlling over 300 hospitals to spend no more than 21s. a week on feeding each patient, at a time of rising prices, and, in view of this, if he will take steps to have this amount increased;
(2) of the action of the South-West Metropolitan Board in cutting to 14s. a week the maximum amount to be spent on food for each mental patient under its jurisdiction and if he will ensure that no economy measures are made at the expense of the patient's diet.

Mr. Crookshank: I am informed that the Board have asked management committees, in preparing their estimates for the next financial year, to regard as maxima for their groups certain figures of expenditure on provisions based on averages in the region. In addition they have warned committees to take account of possible price rises in framing their estimates. This is an interim measure pending a further detailed investigation into the costs of provisions and, on the information at present available, I see no reason to intervene.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. hon. Gentleman not aware that several catering officers in London hospitals say that it is impossible to do the job properly at a cost of 21s., and can we have the assurance that we are not going to return to the days when patients depended upon their visitors for essential foods? Further, would the right hon. Gentleman inform the Regional Board that to be a mental patient does not imply that one has not a healthy appetite?

Mr. Crookshank: I am quite sure that the regional boards are cognisant of that


fact; but the position will be reviewed by the Board when the results of detailed investigations are known.

Mr. Dodds: I asked for an assurance that there would be no returning to the days when patients depended for essential food on their visitors. Can I have that assurance?

Mr. Crookshank: There is no intention of doing any such thing.

Dentists' Payments

Mr. G. P. Stevens: asked the Minister of Health upon what grounds the Estimates Board are authorised to refuse payments to dentists for intra-oral X-rays up to 12s. 6d., and for bite-wing films, as an aid to diagnosis.

Mr. Crookshank: The Dental Estimate Board, under statutory powers, may disapprove items of treatment considered by the Board not necessary to secure dental fitness. Any dentist dissatisfied with the Board's decision has a statutory right of appeal.

Mr. Stevens: Is the Minister not aware that the regulations of his Department provide for the payment, without the approval of prior authority, for these fees up to 12s. 6d., and that great dissatisfaction has been caused to dentists by the continued refusal of the Estimates Board to meet this approved payment?

Mr. Crookshank: As I said, any dentist who is dissatisfied has the right of appeal.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Parkinson's Disease (Clinics)

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Health how many specialised clinics for the treatment of Parkinson's disease are at present available in England and Wales; and what further facilities he proposes for the treatment of this disease.

Mr. Crookshank: Specialist advice is available at neurological clinics throughout England and Wales, and in 1950 there were 117 such clinic sessions held weekly. Neurological services are being

improved as a part of the general development of the specialist services.

Dr. Stross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that there do not seem to be sufficient facilities available for the number of people who suffer from this disease and who require in-patient treatment and rehabilitation techniques? Would he consider setting up clinics for full treatment, apart from those on a regional basis attached to the teaching hospitals?

Mr. Crookshank: I should like to see that question on the paper.

Tuberculosis

Brigadier R. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health how many persons in the United Kingdom suffering from tuberculosis are now waiting to enter sanatoria.

Mr. Crookshank: Provisional figures show that the number in England and Wales at 31st December, 1951, was about 8,200.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this compares with the figures for a year ago?

Mr. Crookshank: I am glad to say it is a considerable improvement. A year ago the corresponding number was about 10,000.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the Government's restriction of capital development will not apply to hospital development and thereby restrict still further the accommodation available for tuberculosis cases?

Mr. Crookshank: I could not go into detail, in reply to this Question, as to what may be the result of the capital investment programme.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider increasing the number of patients sent to Switzerland in view of the accommodation available there and the low cost at which it is made available?

Mr. Crookshank: That is another question. I should like to answer it if it is put on the Order Paper.

IDENTITY CARDS (ABOLITION)

Mr. Anthony Barber: asked the Minister of Health whether he will discontinue the use of identity cards.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement about the discontinuation of identity cards.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have decided that it is no longer necessary to require the public to possess and produce an identity card, or to notify change of address for National Registration purposes though the numbers will continue to be used in connection with the National Health Service. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT more details of this decision—as they are a little long—and people should await those details before disposing of their cards.

The following is the statement:
Her Majesty's Government have decided that it is no longer necessary to require the public to possess and produce an identity card, or to notify change of address for National Registration purposes.
The necessary formal steps to bring the Act of 1939 to an end will be taken as soon as certain transitional arrangements have been completed, but the changes I have already mentioned will come into operation forthwith and no new cards will be issued. This decision does not apply to the special merchant seamen's identity cards issued by the Ministry of Transport, which should be retained.
Numbering is necessary in the National Health Service in order to identify patients and avoid inflation of doctor's lists of patients. To save the labour and expense of allotting separate numbers, the series hitherto used for both National Registration and the National Health Service will continue to be used for the latter. Anyone using the Service will be asked, as now, for his number when applying to go on a doctor's list and for dental and ophthalmic treatment. He may have difficulty in getting treated under the Service if he cannot give the number. He should therefore verify that the number is on his medical card. If it is not on the card, he should insert it; if he has no medical card he should apply for one to the local executive council (whose address can be obtained at the Post Office) and in the meantime should keep his identity card as a record of the number.
Government Departments will be able to obtain from the records of the Ministry of National Insurance and otherwise much of the information which they have hitherto obtained from the National Register.

The effect of the Government's decision is that identity cards cease to have any official value, and the public are warned no longer to accept them as sufficient evidence of identity.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the economies likely to be gained as a result of the discontinuance of identity cards?

Mr. Crookshank: The result of this action is estimated to save, in staff, about 1,500 people and, in cost, about £500,000.

Mr. Clement Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his reply will be generally welcomed? Will he consider a refund to Mr. Willcock, who did a very considerable public service in calling attention to these cards and to the fact that they were unnecessary and degrading? Third, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to follow his good example and try and get rid of passports as well?

Mr. Barber: Will my right hon. Friend agree that this welcome action which he has taken could, in fact, have been taken a long time ago, with the consequent savings to which he has referred?

Mr. Crookshank: Certainly. That was a suggestion which was pressed upon the previous Government.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have risen to my feet. I understand from the Minister's answer that a fuller statement is to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Perhaps it would be in the interests of hon. and right hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper—

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Apart entirely from the merits of the question, was there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should make an attack on the late Government without affording my right hon. Friend an opportunity of asking a question about those allegations? May I ask, Sir, what relation there was between the merits of the question and the insinuation of the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir Herbert Williams: Is this a point of order, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: It is not strictly a point or order. The reason why I stopped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), was that I had already risen to my feet and I did not like to give way on that occasion. I think it is to the interest of right hon. and hon. Members as a whole that we should pass on and then perhaps return to the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Agricultural Workers

Mr. Maitland: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that National Service advisory panels, when considering applications for the deferment of agricultural workers, do not invite the applicant to state his case in person before the panel; and whether he will consider instructing panel chairmen to do this.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): I have had no previous representations on this point. The present arrangements were agreed in detail with the agricultural employers' and workers' organisations, and nothing has been brought to my notice suggesting a need for the change proposed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maitland: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he will consider special cases in parts of the country, such as Scotland in general and Lanarkshire in particular?

Sir W. Monckton: If my hon. Friend wishes to bring to my attention some special features in the constituency which he represents I shall, of course, be pleased to consider them.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that from the results flowing from the investigations made by these panels it would appear from the evidence that is coming from my constituency and elsewhere that many persons serving on them have no knowledge whatever of agriculture?

Mr. Maitland: asked the Minister of Labour the special qualifications sought in selecting persons to serve as chairmen of

National Service advisory panels on the deferment of agricultural workers; and how they are chosen.

Sir W. Monckton: Agricultural advisory panels do not have a chairman. They normally consist of two representatives from each side of the industry, who are convened by an officer of my Department. The convenor's duty is to convey the advice of the members of the panel to the National Service Deferment Board, with whom the final decision rests.

Mr. Maitland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that great dissatisfaction has been expressed in my constituency, at any rate, about the working of these panels?

Mr. Maitland: asked the Minister of Labour how many agricultural workers, employed on farms or market gardens employing fewer than five persons have been refused deferment from National Service between 31st October, 1951, and the latest convenient date in the United Kingdom and in Scotland; and how many deferments have been granted, in the United Kingdom and in Scotland to agricultural workers on farms and market gardens employing more than five persons.

Sir W. Monckton: I could not, without a disproportionate expenditure of staff time, divide these figures between farms employing more or less than five workers. In the United Kingdom, 5,810 deferments had been granted and 1,454 rejected up to 31st January. The corresponding figures for Scotland are 840 and 153.

Mr. David J. Pryde: Does not the Minister consider that the time has arrived when the whole question of the deferment of agricultural workers in Scotland should be reviewed?

Sir W. Monckton: The question of deferment is constantly before us, both in relation to England and Scotland. I have it under review all the time.

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consult the Service Departments with a view to formulating a scheme whereby agricultural workers can be called up for military training for certain months in the year, over a number of years, instead of for the whole of the two-year period as at present.

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think there are sufficient grounds for proposing a scheme of this kind, which would clearly have serious disadvantages from the point of view of the Services.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. and learned Friend not give further and sympathetic consideration to this matter, having in mind that he would gain real good will from the agricultural industry if he could meet their seasonal difficulties?

Sir W. Monckton: I am most anxious to bear anything in mind which will enable us to meet the seasonal difficulties of agriculture, which I fully appreciate, but there are very great difficulties in taking a call-up of agricultural workers and dividing it into four when we consider the work for which these men are wanted when they are called up.

Mr. J. Grimond: In view of the great difficulty which the two-year call-up imposes on agriculture, will the Minister consider, as an alternative, accepting the enrolment of agricultural workers in the Civil Defence Service or the Home Guard, in which they would probably serve in time of war?

Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the arrangements whereby fishermen and others who normally work in boats are called up by a special arrangement which suits both them and the naval service?

Sir W. Monckton: I am aware of that. In answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. J. Grimond), I would point out that it is very difficult to make special arrangements for a particular industry. I think the House ought to be aware of the figures involved here. So far, it looks as if for the first year not more than 10,000 men will be called up from agriculture out of a total working force, including working farmers, of something like 900,000.

Defence Programme (Workers)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Minister of Labour what are the main types of labour in which shortages have developed in the defence production programme; and in what numbers.

Sir W. Monckton: The main types of workers at present in short supply for the

defence programme are skilled men in the principal engineering occupations. The number of unfilled vacancies in these occupations rose from about 21,500 in October, 1950, to 35,000 in December, 1951. Most of these vacancies are on defence or other essential production. In a few areas there is also an acute shortage of unskilled workers, particularly for certain Royal Ordnance factories.

Mr. MacPherson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to what extent he expects to be able to fill these vacancies? Since the majority are for skilled men does he expect to be able to absorb skilled men who are now redundant and intend to train more men for skilled jobs?

Sir W. Monckton: I hope certainly to be able to absorb more skilled men than are available and I have every intention of doing everything I can to encourage the training to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: Is it not the case that the civilian programme has been cut much faster than defence orders have been given? Do not these figures refer to theoretical vacancies whereas there is real unemployment?

Sir W. Monckton: Undoubtedly as these cuts have emerged they have created difficulties in some places, and I am constantly watching both the industries which are engaged on the defence programme and others to try to see that all available workers are properly employed in the national interest.

Mr. Edelman: But the unemployment is there; the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot deny that.

Engineers, Acton

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to ensure employment in defence and other industries of the growing number of engineers in the borough of Acton becoming redundant and unemployed directly and indirectly through the shortage of steel supplies.

Sir W. Monckton: There are a large number of outstanding vacancies in North-West London for skilled and unskilled men in the engineering industry.


Workers in the borough of Acton who may be discharged from their present employment should, if they register at the employment exchange, have little difficulty in obtaining suitable alternative work.

Mr. Sparks: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of the factories in which redundancy of skilled engineers arises are capable of being converted to defence production, as they were during the war, but that apparently no action is being taken by any Government Department to effect that conversion? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that he is in direct contact with other Government Departments on this question, so that those factories where redundancy exists may be converted to defence production?

Sir W. Monckton: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the important thing is whether there is a substantial number of engineering workers out of work in the area to which the Question relates. I have made inquiries and on 18th February there were only 18 such men, and nearly all of them have been submitted for fresh employment.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that although the engineering unions will be very happy to assist in bringing new people into the industry, they cannot very well do that if there is to be redundancy among skilled engineers at the same time?

Sir W. Monckton: I assure the House that where skilled engineers are available there will be no difficulty in finding them proper employment. We shall do our best, with the help of both sides of the industry, to place them where they are most useful in the common cause.

Personal Case, Chorley

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: asked the Minister of Labour why Mr. F. Castellanetta was refused admission at the Woodlands Hostel, Chorley, after having been accepted as an employee at the Welch Whittle Colliery, Coppull; and why he was sent by the Chorley employment exchange to the hostel and then refused accommodation.

Sir W. Monckton: Mr. Castellanetta was not refused accommodation at the

Woodlands Hostel. He was admitted for the night of 28th January and was then transferred to a Yorkshire colliery by the National Coal Board.

Armament Workers (Under-employment)

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the increasing number of men employed in armament firms who are being retained at day rate wages in factories where there is no work for them to do; and what steps he has proposed to take to deal with this matter.

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. I have no evidence that under-employment is at all common in armament firms. I have written to the hon. Member about the individual case he raised with me.

Mr. Hale: I have not had a letter from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he aware that it has been stated publicly, without contradiction, that, although the Avro works at Oldham are sub-contracting a great part of their Canberra work, at their factory at Failsworth they have 60 skilled sheet-metal workers kept on day wages and not allowed to be given any work to bring them full wages, that that has been the case for some time and that there have been public protests?

Sir W. Monckton: I am sorry that my letter has not reached the hon. Gentleman. When it does he will find that I have dealt with this case and that I have taken steps which I hope will remedy it.

Elderly Workers (Committee)

Mr. Malcolm McCorquodale: asked the Minister of Labour what conclusions he has reached on the proposal made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom for a committee to examine, on a broad basis, the question of the employment of elderly workers.

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. I am proposing to appoint a Committee whose terms of reference will be to advise and assist me in promoting the employment of older men and women. The Chairman of the Committee will be my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, and the membership will cover both sides of industry, the Government Departments principally concerned, local authorities, medicine, research, social science and welfare.
I am glad to say that in appointing this Committee I am carrying forward the policy of my predecessor in the late Government, and I look forward to much constructive help.

Mr. McCorquodale: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his announcement, which will be widely welcomed from all sides of the House, may I ask whether the inquiry will include both wage and salary earners, and people in private employment as well as in civil and local authority employment?

Sir W. Monckton: I will consider that.

BRITISH EMBASSY, MADRID (ATTACHE)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to appoint a Labour Attaché to the British Embassy in Madrid.

Sir W. Monckton: An appointment has been made to this post.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the Labour Attaché will not be a member of the Labour Party, because of their dislike of Spain?

MINISTERS (ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS)

Mr. George Chetwynd: asked the Prime Minister what conditions govern the acceptance by Ministers of the Crown, in pursuance of their duties, of gifts and services from commercial undertakings.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) yesterday.

Mr. Chetwynd: As my Question deals with general policy and not with the specific cases brought up yesterday, is it not very desirable that there should be a complete ban on the acceptance of gifts and services by Ministers, as it is quite impossible to decide when a Minister is placed under an obligation to a private firm?

The Prime Minister: I think that it would be a great mistake to try to lay down detailed rules and regulations,

which have not been found necessary in the past, by question and answer at this period of our discussions.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Prime Minister say how far this decision about the Cunard Company is to be regarded as a precedent? Will it now be in order for the Scotch Whisky Association to provide free treatment for sea sickness when he goes on another visit to America? [Laughter.]

The Prime Minister: I think the laughter which the hon. Member's question has excited is the best answer to him.

CEREMONIAL PARADES (WOMEN'S SERVICES)

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will ensure that in all future ceremonial parades on national occasions contingents of the women's Services will be included.

The Prime Minister: In future, as in the past, contingents of the women's Services will be included in ceremonial parades on national occasions when this is appropriate.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that representatives of the women's Services were not in the parade on Friday last, does that mean that, in the view of the Prime Minister, that was an occasion when it was not appropriate for members of the women's Services to be on parade?

The Prime Minister: No, the arrangements for the funeral were made by the Earl Marshal, and I have felt that they were extremely good; but I agree that this question of women's contingents marching in the very long and arduous journey which had to be made is one which requires detailed consideration.

Mr. Henderson: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give this his personal consideration, because I am quite sure he will agree that the exclusion of representatives of the women's Services is not conducive to good recruitment for them?

The Prime Minister: That is the rule which we have accepted—that there are exceptions.

Mr. Charles Royle: Is the Prime Minister aware that there was some concern that this House was not represented in the procession?

Miss Burton: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is true that the Earl Marshal's office said, in connection with this occasion, that the three Services had been consulted and that they felt it was not advisable that women should take part—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the Earl Marshal's office.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why, contrary to expectations, those Members of the House who were chosen to represent us at the funeral service of his late Majesty did not march in the procession through London? Can we take it that they were considered less physically capable of doing so than members of the Diplomatic Corps?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that precedent was followed, and I think that the way in which precedent was applied to the various complex questions which were raised was an admirable example of efficiency.

Mr. H. Morrison: I gather that the Prime Minister is not unsympathetic to the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), and I think that all quarters of the House would feel happier if he would give an undertaking to give sympathetic consideration to promoting the participation of women in these functions. I am not talking necessarily about the Earl Marshal's responsibilities, but participation of the women's Services in these functions. They are part of Service life generally, and participation in them is very good for morale.

Miss Burton: On a point of order. I am sorry to persist, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask if you are aware that I was not referring to what the Earl Marshal's office had done but to the fact that this decision was reached by the three Services? I wanted to ask the Prime Minister if he would recommend to the Service chiefs that, in future, women should take part on these occasions?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite in order, but the hon. Lady did refer to the Earl Marshal's office.

Miss Burton: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think the point has now been covered.

Mr. S. Silverman: If the Earl Marshal's office consulted the Services before coming to the decision to which they did come, are not the Service Ministers responsible to this House for the information or advice which they gave to the Earl Marshal on that occasion?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is a firm rule of Questions, which applies to those on the Order Paper as well as to supplementary questions, that no question can be addressed to a Minister on any matter unless he is executively responsible for the decision, and I think that questions about the advice that was given, and so on, would be out of order.

ATOMIC WEAPONS (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what was the nature of the discussions he had with the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and the United States of America before announcing the preparations for an explosion of a British atomic weapon in Australia.

The Prime Minister: During the years 1950 and 1951 discussions proceeded on this subject between the late Government and the Governments of Australia and the United States of America. When Her Majesty's present Government assumed office at the end of October last, and learned for the first time what the position was, arrangements were made with Her Majesty's Government in Australia to carry out the test in that country.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a statement made by the American State Department on 12th February, saying that Britain declined an American offer to make immediate use of United States bomb testing sites? Are we now going to carry out expensive experiments, involving large sums of money and material and labour, duplicating those that are now being made in the United States?

The Prime Minister: This is almost the only part we have had in these affairs—the present Government—we inherited from our predecessors a position which was very far advanced, but we undoubtedly think it better, in all the circumstances, that the discussions which had been proceeding under the late Government for having the test in Australia should be carried to a conclusion, and that is what has been arranged with the Australian Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at no time was there a firm offer by the United States Government to conduct British tests in atomic bomb warfare in the United States, and that all along, although we had discussions with them, we did contemplate that, if anything were to be done, it ought to be undertaken in Australia?

The Prime Minister: We are very glad to know that we have the support of the right hon. Gentleman in carrying out a policy of which the late Government had the responsibility and, as many will think, the credit.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Women's Land Army

Mr. Robert Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the need of greater agricultural production, he will start recruitment for the Women's Land Army.

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): No, Sir. I am very conscious of the services the Women's Land Army has given to agriculture in the past, and I am sure that the many farmers who received the Land Army's help share my feeling; but I do not think it would be appropriate to re-form the Women's Land Army at the present time.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what evidence he has as to semen being a carrier of foot and mouth disease.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am advised that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease invades all the tissues of an affected animal and that there is every reason to expect that the semen would be infected. There is in fact, evidence of the recovery of virus

from the semen of infected bulls in Holland.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that there is a good deal of alarm in agricultural circles in view of the fact that last winter there was a case of foot and mouth disease in an A.I. station?

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will have an annual report of the research station at Pirbright published as was the custom in pre-war years.

Sir T. Dugdale: The Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Institute was reconstituted on 1st April, 1951, under the Companies Act, 1948, as an independent research institute under the control of a governing body. The governing body has the question of publishing an annual report under consideration.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: On a point of order. May I draw your attention to something, Mr. Speaker, and ask for your guidance? The agriculture Questions answered today numbered only three, and this is the fourth or fifth time running that so very few agriculture Questions have been answered. A great many hon. Members represent constituencies almost entirely agricultural, and while I know that this matter is entirely out of your control, it does come within the field of the Leader of the House; and could not some arrangement be arrived at whereby agriculture Questions get a fair showing from time to time?

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: May I, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, also seek some guidance?

Mr. Speaker: On the same point?

Mr. Nabarro: On a policy point.

Mr. Speaker: Let me first answer the point of order. I have no doubt that what the hon. Member has said about agriculture Questions will be considered by those responsible. If I can help I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. Nabarro: I was going to say, further to that point of order, that some of us have been deferring agriculture Questions since before Christmas, because every Thursday afternoon it has been impossible to get more than one or two taken.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us a statement on business for next week?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 25th FEBRUARY — Second Reading of the Town Development Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution until about 7 o'clock.

Committee and remaining stages of—

Income Tax Bill [Lords].

Agriculture (Fertilisers) Bill.

Conclusion of the debate on the Second Reading of the Export Guarantees Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Consideration of Motions to approve—

House of Commons Redistribution of Seats Order.

Draft Registration of Title (Surrey) Order.

TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY—Debate on the Opposition Motion relating to Foreign Affairs.

WEDNESDAY, 27th FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

THURSDAY, 28TH FEBRUARY—Debate on Defence. This will take place on a Government Motion to approve the White Paper. That White Paper will, I understand, be available in the Vote Office at about half-past five this evening.

FRIDAY, 29TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet considered the request for a day to discuss the proposals for the Federation of Central Africa?

Mr. Crookshank: I understand that an opportunity for that may arise soon in the normal course of business.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: When may we expect to have the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill, if at all; and by whom may we expect it to be introduced?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: A Minister cannot be made to answer if he does not desire to do so.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the Leader of the House seen the very important Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend for Devonport (Mr. Foot), supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, concerning war-damaged towns and cities; and can he give us any idea whether or not, and when, we are likely to have a debate on that Motion?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot say anything about that.

Miss Irene Ward: I understand that there was an agreement last night that the Export Guarantees Bill should be through by 10 o'clock, but that that agreement was not kept. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ask the Leader of the Opposition whether they have abandoned the principle of agreement, and whether, in future, he will be able to control his own followers in these matters?

Mr. Speaker: I do not see how an answer can be given to that.

Mr. Gordon Walker: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to redeem the promise given by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, that we would have an early debate in this House on the Council of Europe?

Mr. Crookshank: I will bear that in mind. It has not been brought to my notice recently. There will, of course, be opportunities in the normal course of business for a number of these discussions.

Mr. Walker: The Home Secretary gave a substantial undertaking that there would be a debate on this particular matter. Indeed. I think he said many debates.

Mr. John Hynd: On a point of order. When my hon. Friends pressed for an answer earlier, I understood you, Mr. Speaker, to say that if a Minister did not desire to answer, he could not be called upon to answer. Am I not right in understanding that the right hon. Gentleman


is now answering questions, not as a Minister, but as Leader of the House; and are we not entitled to press him for an answer as Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I think there is a distinction, but for this matter the distinction is unimportant. No hon. Member can be forced to answer a question.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Further to that point of order. Is it not at least customary for Ministers to give some indication of when business of this importance is to be taken?

Mr. Crookshank: I am prepared to say that I have given the business for next week, and that the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not figure there.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Let me answer the point of order. If the Leader of the House does not know the answer, he cannot give it.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: Will my right hon. Friend provide time—at least half a day—for a discussion on the Farm Prices Review, in view of the complete misunderstanding in this House and in the country as to what the guaranteed prices for farmers mean?

Mr. Crookshank: I must remind the House that, owing to the sad events through which we have just passed, we have lost a great deal of Parliamentary time as it is, and that between now and Easter certain financial business has to be got through owing to the workings of the statutes.

Mr. Charles Pannell: What about the long Christmas Recess?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order and must be allowed to do so.

Mr. Silverman: In view of your Ruling just now about the right of the Leader of the House not to answer a question on business when he does not know the answer, may I ask for your guidance? On the occasions when the

Leader of the House finds himself in the position of not knowing the answers to questions about business, who is then the proper Minister to whom to put questions about business?

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question arose out of the answer detailing the business next week. The Leader of the House was asked, as is quite common, whether facilities would be given, and when, for other debates. It is obvious that the programme ahead is a fluid matter, and the House may think it quite reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should not know the exact date.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Michael Stewart.

Mr. James Hudson: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been forestalled by another point of order. Mr. Michael Stewart.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Further to that last point of order. My hon. Friend asked, not only when the Bill would be introduced, but who would be introducing it. Are we to understand that the Leader of the House does not know that either?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hudson: In view of the inability of the Leader of the House to make any announcement about urgent and vital Bills which were expected, how does it come about that he is today able to announce the introduction of a Bill dealing with licensing, the only undertaking regarding which was given in private to the liquor trade? Is it only the liquor trade which counts in Tory decisions?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can answer that one myself. The right hon. Gentleman was giving the business for next week, and this Bill is put in the business for next week.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: On a point of order. I do not know whether it is possible for me to assist the House in this matter. There have been a great many questions, but none on next week's business. I rise for the purpose of asking a question of some importance in regard


to Monday's business. I do not know whether, in view of the fact that there have been no questions on the actual business of next week, you will permit me to ask it.

Mr. Speaker: In those circumstances, it would be a relief to have a supplementary question on the actual business.

Mr. Bing: May I ask the Leader of the House, in regard to Monday's business and the Export Guarantees Bill, whether, in view of the fact that both the hon. Gentlemen who are in charge of that Department have exhausted their right to speak, and in view of the way in which they treated the House and, therefore, the likelihood that the House will refuse them permission to speak again, and in view of the importance of the Treasury aspect of this matter, he will arrange for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be present to speak in the resumed debate?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot say which particular Minister will be here, but certainly the debate will be carried on from the Government benches by someone fully qualified to deal with it after the hon. Member who is in possession of the House has finished his speech. It depends on what he says.

Mr. Speaker: We really must pass on now.

Mr. W. R. D. Perkins: On a point of order. As this is the only opportunity we get of questioning the Government about future business, would it be in order for me to ask the Government what their intentions are in regard to the British Museum Bill?

Mr. Speaker: We have really passed from that now. The hon. Member may ascertain that through the usual channels.

ROAD ACCIDENT, GILLINGHAM

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the leave of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Gillingham accident.
In reply to a Private Notice Question on 5th December last, I informed the House that I proposed to hold an inquiry under Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act,

1930, into the tragic accident which had occurred at Gillingham when 24 cadets were killed and others were seriously injured. At that time I had no detailed information about the accident and I was not of course aware of, nor could I foresee, future developments.
Since then, as the House will be aware, the driver of the bus concerned has been prosecuted on a charge of dangerous driving and all the circumstances of the accident have been thoroughly and impartially examined in public in the course of these proceedings. Hon. Members will recall that the trial took place at the Central Criminal Court before a High Court Judge sitting with a jury.
It has accordingly been necessary for me to reconsider the desirability of holding any further inquiry into the cause of this accident in pursuance of the powers conferred on me by Section 23 of the Act of 1930. The cause of the accident has already been determined by the criminal proceedings brought against the driver. Apart from the human implications of all concerned, I have reached the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by holding an administrative inquiry which could only cover the same ground as that already covered by judicial proceedings. I can assure the House that I have only reached this decision after the most careful and anxious thought.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that his decision not to hold an inquiry, after having promised to do so, is a matter giving rise to great concern, particularly to those most intimately connected with the accident; and further, will the Minister tell me whether it was with his authority that the Gillingham Corporation reduced the power of public lighting in the road where the accident occurred?

Mr. Maclay: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I feel that those most intimately concerned must realise that my powers under the Section of the Act which I have quoted are restricted solely to inquiry into the cause of the accident, and from my statement and from hon. Members' knowledge of what happened in the High Court proceedings, it will be seen that everything relating to the accident was most thoroughly ex-


amined. On the second point, I have no knowledge of the matter which the right hon. Member has raised.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Is the Minister aware that his decision will be welcomed by a great number of people in the Medway towns who consider that there has already been sufficient suffering by the parents of the boys and the driver of the omnibus, and will he give an assurance that this accident has focussed his attention on the constant need for ensuring that a committee sits to look into the question of maintaining road safety at all times? If he will do so, I am sure that those who have suffered most will be the first to admit that some good has arisen out of this accident.

Mr. Bottomley: May I first of all say that the fact that the Minister cannot say whether the Gillingham Council did make inquiries or not shows that there is need for further investigation; and is the Minister aware that the court proceedings were against a driver who was convicted of dangerous driving, but that there are other aspects which have not as yet been examined and which ought to be?

Mr. Maclay: May I clear up a misapprehension in my reply to the first point in the right hon. Member's previous question. I do know that there have been no requests from that local authority to my Department in relation to lighting in that street. That, of course. I know definitely.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I follow the point which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) raised, and I think that there is something in it, but may I put this point to the Minister? It was the case that in the criminal proceedings the sole issue before the court—and this was stressed by the Crown—was whether or not the driver of the omnibus was guilty of dangerous driving. I visited this road myself, as I happened to be in the town. There are other considerations which arise and which will have significance in the future in the prevention of these accidents. May I put it to the Minister that there are elements concerned with street lighting, the Highway Code, the way in which pedestrians should approach oncoming traffic, and the way in which the authorities or other

people in charge of young people and others should handle these occasions? I submit to the hon. Gentleman that to set all that aside and not to pursue some form of appropriate investigation or inquiry would be a neglect of the duties of the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Maclay: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all these considerations which have come out of this accident have been very carefully noted. Such considerations are being examined the whole time by the Committee on Road Safety which sits as a permanent body for the examination of just these things. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has really made my point that all the evidence that can come out has come out already.

Mr. Morrison: I wish to put to the Minister this point: Is it not his duty, in the light of the fact that this was an accident of importance and has caused a great deal of sorrow, to consider whether there ought to be a systematic investigation on a wider basis of the accident? I am not saying that it should necessarily be of a public character, which might revive unhappy memories, but there should be an adequate investigation and a report, with public advice as to what should have been done in this case and what should be done in future. That is the point I am on—not merely that the Minister takes note but that the public knows. There should be an authoritative investigation which should pronounce views upon this matter for the guidance of people in the future.

Mr. Maclay: I suggest, with respect, that these are precisely the considerations which will be examined by the continuing Committee on Road Safety. That is the purpose for which it exists. I would add that I myself am quite determined that the lessons about road safety which have been learnt, not only as a result of this tragic accident, but in recent months as a result of the serious figures, will continue to be examined and that everything possible shall be done to improve the position so far as Government Departments can help.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the Minister look at his answer again? His opening sentences were based on a complete misapprehension of the law. It is not possible for contributory factors to be thoroughly


investigated in the course of the proceedings on a criminal charge of dangerous driving. The jury at the Old Bailey considered the speed of the bus and the manner which it was being driven, but it could not have regard to any circumstances in relation to the way in which the lads were being marched, the lighting of the road, the condition of the road, or the weather conditions, and so on. Those matters can only be brought out by means of an investigation.

Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order. I wish to ask my customary question: What Motion is the House discussing?

Mr. Speaker: I am in the difficulty that there is no Question before the House. Therefore, we cannot debate the matter here. Nevertheless it is common practice, and the desire of the House, that we should allow a few supplementary questions. That does not mean that we can continue this. Mr. Maclay.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), referred to the early part of my statement. I would re-emphasise that under Section 23 of the Act the Minister may direct an inquiry to be made into the cause of the accident. In the course of the proceedings in the Central Criminal Court, certain factors came out absolutely clearly and all the contributory conditions were very thoroughly examined. Precisely the points which the hon. Member has made came out. The really important thing for the future is that the knowledge which has been gained should be used to ensure that this kind of accident can never happen again.

Mr. Speaker: If the House wishes—

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adojurnment.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS ON GOING INTO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of seeing that

British opinions and policies are adequately interpreted both at home and abroad, and move a Resolution.

SIMPLIFIED ENGLISH SPELLING

Mr. M. Follick: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the great advantage that might accrue in the sending of dispatches and messages if some simplification of English spelling were to be introduced, and move a Resolution.

COASTAL COMMAND (FUTURE)

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the future of Coastal Command, and move a Resolution.

TRAINING (ADVANCED METHODS)

Sir Stanley Holmes: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the necessity for developing our advanced methods of training with a view to reaching higher efficiency in a shorter time, and move a Resolution.

HORTICULTURE

Mr. H. A. Price: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the problems of horticulture, and move a Resolution.

LONG-SERVICE ARMY PERSONNEL (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for better provision for regular and secure employment for long-service Army personnel, and move a Resolution.

WORLD GOVERNMENT

Mr. Henry Usborne: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for world government, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS

Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the work of the Royal Dockyards, and move a Resolution.

TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT (MANNED RESERVE)

Mr. G. B. Drayson: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for the formation of a manned reserve of transport aircraft, and move a Resolution.

RESERVE ARMY (RECRUITMENT)

Mr. Cyril W. Black: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for recruiting for the Reserve Army, and move a Resolution.

N.A.A.F.I. (DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS)

Mr. W. Nally: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the organisation and present system of distribution of profits of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, better known as N.A.A.F.I., and move a Resolution.

CIVIL DEFENCE (ORGANISATION)

Sir Robert Cary: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the organisation of Civil Defence, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL

"to empower the National Film Finance Corporation to borrow otherwise than from the Board of Trade," presented by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Henry Strauss; read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1951–52.

CLASS V VOTE 9

Ministry of National Insurance

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £904,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of National Insurance, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the National Insurance Fund and the Industrial Injuries Fund; payments in respect of family allowances; certain expenses in connection with national insurance, industrial injuries insurance, family allowances and workmen's compensation; and sundry other services.

4.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): Although the expenditure concerned in this Vote comes under six different sub-heads, there are two factors alone that have caused these increases in expenditure.
First, on salaries, there was an increase of pay awarded in February, 1951, that came too late for inclusion in last year's Estimates, and that involves extra expenditure in my Department of £573,000. Since then there has been the recent pay increase operating from January, 1952, which amounted to £333,000, which makes a toal of £906,000. That total is reduced owing to the staff reductions that have taken place during the financial year. These staff reductions have amounted to 750 during the year. so that the Ministry's staff averages 500 less over the year. That will mean that the net amount is £790,000 in respect of salaries, and from that the Committee will notice there will be a recovery from the National Insurance Fund and the Industrial Injuries Fund amounting to


£711,000 in respect of administration, which will reduce the net figure.
The second factor, which is the more important, both in amount and also in the reason for this Supplementary Estimate, is that there has been a slight correction necessary on the original Estimate, owing to the fact that the previous Government took an over-cautious view as to the probable extent of unemployment and sickness during the current financial year. The original Estimate was based on an average figure of unemployment of 285,000, but in fact the average has been 238,000.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? He said that the previous Government took an over-cautious view, but this provision for unemployment was made in the original Act, and is not varied from year to year.

Mr. Turton: Perhaps I may explain in further detail. Each year, in the Estimates, we have to provide something for the Exchequer share of the contribution, and that share depends on the number of persons in insured employment—the insured population. Secondly, of course, it will be decreased by any number of persons who were receiving sick benefit or unemployment benefit and were receiving credits when no stamps have been paid for. Each year, we have to make an Estimate of what will be the probable number of unemployed and sick at the time. Last year, an unduly cautious figure was taken, and, for that reason, we find ourselves faced with that figure of £1,500,000 which I am explaining, and I was saying that the unemployment figure went down to 238,000 instead of being 285,000.
With regard to the sickness rate, the expected average rate of 850,000, in fact, proved to be no more than 800,000. Last year, there was a big influenza epidemic, and the right hon. Lady who was then Minister of National Insurance was quite right in making good provision for sickness rates during that time. The insured population was estimated to be 21,280,000, and we find that the actual figure will be 21,470,000, an increase of 190,000.
The result of this increase in the insured population, and of the decreases in the numbers of sick and unemployed,

means that there will be more contributions being paid into the Funds, and that the Exchequer share of these increased contributions will be £1,200,000. The difference of about £250,000 between these two figures is contributed by the fact that last year there was a similar over-cautious Estimate, and this year we have to pick up that factor, and that is how we get the figure of £1,500,000.
Just as the unemployment figures have been less than the previous Government anticipated, that means that there will be a saving in expenditure on extended unemployment benefit of £750,000. These factors bring the total Supplementary Estimate to the net figure of £904,000. I hope the Committee will regard that as a satisfactory explanation, but I shall be glad to answer any other points that are raised at a later stage.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I think the Committee will recognise that the increases in salaries account in the main for this Supplementary Estimate, and no one here will contend that this expenditure could be avoided. What surprises me is that this Supplementary Estimate submitted today fails entirely to take into account the increased cost of living, and particularly the proposal to charge a shilling for prescriptions and for certain other essential treatment under the National Health Service, which, in my opinion, will bear most hardly on pensioners, widows and dependent children, for whom the Parliamentary Secretary's Department is responsible. Is it contended by the Parliamentary Secretary that medical treatment for the aged and children is not an essential which must be taken into consideration in the family budget?

Mr. Turton: To which sub-head is the right hon. Lady referring?

Dr. Summerskill: I am relating my remarks to all the sub-heads, and I want the hon. Gentleman to explain why these things are not included in many of them.

The Chairman: Can the right hon. Lady tell me which of the subjects dealt with in these Supplementary Estimates is related to the remarks she is now making to the Committee?

Dr. Summerskill: I am quite prepared to refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the


reductions which he hopes to make of £750,000.

The Chairman: That is a saving, which cannot be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate.

Dr. Summerskill: The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned savings and went into some detail on the question. Am I not allowed to reply?

The Chairman: I did not notice that; I was perhaps otherwise engaged at the time, but it is out of order.

Dr. Summerskill: I think you might exercise your discretion in this matter, Sir Charles. As the Parliamentary Secretary brought up this question, and was questioned upon it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), may I not answer the hon. Gentleman? The whole Committee has sat here listening to him, yet, when I refer to that point, I am refused.

The Chairman: I have no discretion in the matter. I have to carry out the rules of the House.

Mr. Turton: On a point of accuracy, may I say that I did not discuss this matter? I was questioned, not on this point, but on the other sub-head concerning £1,500,000, which I explained as being due to the fact that there were fewer people unemployed. I believe that I am right in mentioning that fact, and in explaining that the gross total is less by reason of the saving, without going into detail on that point.

Dr. Summerskill: I think the Committee will recall that the Parliamentary Secretary drew our attention to the fact that savings had been effected. After that be paused, because he felt it was a matter for congratulation. I feel that I can return to the point and at least question him upon it. If he puts his case and addresses himself to that point, can I not ask him why this sum was not used for other purposes?

The Chairman: It cannot be done.

Dr. Summerskill: That is the case which I was going to put.

Mr. Thomas Price: May I attempt to clarify this matter? I submit that the Estimate as it stands is

the net result of the debit and credit items in the schedule, and that therefore my right hon. Friend is in order in referring to the credit item for which the Minister is seeking approval.

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman looks at page 40 he will find which items are in order and which are not. Items A to I are in order. Then he will see the word "Less" below them, relating to expected savings. These items are not in order.

Dr. Summerskill: Am I in order if I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Supplementary Estimate on page 40 is required in the year ending 31st March, 1952, and ask him why certain provision has not therefore been made for people who will be in need between 1st March and 31st March? That is specifically stated in the Supplementary Estimate.

The Chairman: No, because it is not in the Estimate.

Dr. Summerskill: If we are discussing Estimates which cover a certain period I should have thought it would be in order to refer to that period.

The Chairman: It is only in order to refer to what is in the Estimate.

Dr. Summerskill: I am prepared to defer to that Ruling. As the 1s. on the prescription is to be imposed on 1st March, I wanted to ask how those people are to manage between 1st March and 31st March, if the Minister does not cover them.

The Chairman: That appears to be quite a reasonable question, but it is not in order on the Supplementary Estimate.

Dr. Summerskill: Thank you, Sir Charles.

Mr. William Ross: Cannot we ask whether it is not included?

The Chairman: No, that is not the point. We can deal only with the Supplementary Estimate which is before the Committee.

Mr. Ross: Let us take the contribution to the Industrial Injuries Fund, upon which an additional £100,000 is to be spent. Are we not entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has


taken into consideration the need for the medical appliances which will be required by the people who are injured, and whether he has covered it in the £100,000?

The Chairman: Certainly, the hon. Gentleman can ask the Minister what it is all about and why he wants the money.

Dr. Summerskill: In Class V, National Assistance Board—

Mr. Turton: I did not know that it was in order to take two Votes together. I was only dealing with one.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Here are two Votes for which the same Ministry are responsible. The Ministry of National Insurance Vote covers both the National Insurance Scheme and the National Injuries Scheme, and the other Vote covers the National Assistance Board, for which the Minister are responsible. I am sure that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could discuss both these parts of Class V together. It is within your discretion, Sir Charles.

The Chairman: It is not within my discretion upon Supplementary Estimates.

Dr. Summerskill: I understood that on these occasions it is optional who should open the debate, either the Minister or myself. I inquired from the Clerks at the Table before I sat down. If I had been opening the debate, I should have put questions both upon National Insurance and National Assistance, and the Minister would have answered those questions.

The Chairman: The right hon. Lady would not have put those questions, because I would have stopped her. I could not have allowed her to do it.

4.15 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I took all the precautions I could beforehand, but it is not the first time that a woman has been misled. Very well, then; I shall have to defer my remarks. It is a pity. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it makes a very ragged debate if he and I have to get up again. I am anxious that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee should have every opportunity, but it appears that we are duplicating.
Let me refer to page 41, Ministry of National Insurance, Sub-head I, relating to a contribution of L100,000 to the Industrial Injuries Fund. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this further amount may be used to cover medical treatment and appliances for those who are incapacitated in industry. I think this is in order. I would remind him that last night he and I faced each other across this Table and had a kind of mutual admiration society, because I congratulated him upon introducing the pneumoconiosis and byssinosis scheme, which derives from the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act.
Last night that scheme was approved by the House. When it comes into operation it will have the effect of giving to the totally incapacitated man certain allowances. I want to know whether the Minister is today reducing that amount by an amount equivalent to the medical expenses in which the men will be involved. Unless the Minister includes in this Supplementary Estimate medical expenses for these men, these totally incapacitated men will be called upon to pay for their treatment out of the allowances which the Minister gave to them last night. I think that is a fair argument.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Lady has been a Minister of this Department, and I feel sure that she is well aware that the benefits under the pneumoconiosis and byssinosis scheme are paid out of the fund and not out of the Exchequer. Subhead I is related to the Exchequer contribution under Section 2 (3) of the Act. It has nothing to do with any payment of benefit, which comes purely out of the fund.

Dr. Summerskill: As the result of announcements made by the present Government, these men will now be compelled to pay for the treatment of these diseases themselves. It is for the Parliamentary Secretary to make provision for those payments; otherwise, the 40s. which he gave them yesterday will dwindle away in medical expenses. I am not surprised that the miners of this country should threaten to withdraw their labour on Saturdays—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—whether we approve of it or not —when they know that their own people suffering from byssinosis and pneumoconiosis will be called upon to pay for


their own medical treatment. They know that it will not only be 1s. for one prescription, but that there will be dozens of prescriptions every year for the rest of their lives.
Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think about this point very carefully. So far as I can see, his is the Department which must face up to this expenditure. Perhaps he will tell me what other Departments can look after those who are suffering from industrial injuries. It is his responsibility. Last night he agreed that it was his responsibility. We were all pleased to think that the Bill for which the previous Labour Government were responsible in the first place had at last borne fruit. Now he cannot come here the day after—indeed the afternoon after—and say: "Yes, I gave these totally disabled men 40s. a week, but they have to pay for their medical benefit out of it."
I see under none of these subheads any provision for meeting the increase in the cost of living, particularly with regard to these health charges. I do not think it is necessary for me to provide evidence to the Committee that the cost of living has increased. I need only ask hon. Members to read Sub-head A, where under "Salaries" we find
Additional provision required to meet increases in pay.
Then under Sub-head C, Incidental Expenses, we see:
Additional provision required mainly to meet an increase in cost of messengers' uniforms and office cleaning.
Then under Sub-head D we find that additional provision is required to meet increases in salaries. All these increases were made because there was conclusive evidence that the cost of living had increased. If it is necessary to come to the Committee for a Supplementary Estimate to meet the increased salaries of the organised workers, then I say it is the duty of the Minister to include these increases in the pensions and allowances of the unorganised pensioners, widows and dependent children.
The Parliamentary Secretary must not think that I am irresponsible in this matter, for I have been the Minister. He may say that it is quite impracticable to allow pensions and allowances

to fluctuate from week to week. I know that. It is the last thing I would suggest. In one of these subheads reference is made to the fact that an increase of assistance was made by the previous Labour Government last July. Before that increase was made, I considered it carefully. I realised that as the months went on I could not consult from month to month the cost-of-living index and adjust pensions and allowances accordingly, I was well advised on this and the advisers of the Parliamentary Secretary are quite right if they say it is impracticable.
However, I will say that if in July the Labour Government had known when making these allowances that medical treatment was to be paid for, that the poorest in the community would be called upon to spend some of their pensions or allowances on what is a necessity in the home, I would not have allowed the sum to go forward which is mentioned in the Estimates today. Therefore, when the Parliamentary Secretary discusses National Assistance, I hope he will tell me how he proposes to answer those questions which I have put to him today.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In putting a few questions on these Supplementary Estimates, may I first ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether his right hon. Friend has made any decision, in conformity with the powers vested in him in the Act, to have a general review of this scheme and whether any provision is made in these Estimates for that purpose?
I also want to ask questions about one or two of the items here, particularly item E on page 40, in which supplementary provision is made for a sum of £8,000 to met the charges falling upon the Ministry for appeal tribunals, referees and medical boards. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 41 and to the reasons given there for this additional provision being required? Is it because there has been an increase in the number of cases to be dealt with by medical boards and tribunals? Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us more information about this, because it is a matter of great importance?
I am not un-connected with this Act nor with its provisions. One of the most important changes made in the Industrial Injuries Act in particular, and,


to a lesser extent, in the National Insurance Act, was that we provided for what became generally known as administrative justice rather than the normal courts of law. It was a very big change and we find here that the Ministry have to make additional provision for it. That being so, I believe we are entitled to ask some questions.
That decision was made by the Government in which I had the privilege of being a Minister. It was made with the consent of all hon. Members. We had lively discussions on this matter in Standing Committee where we had the benefit of the advice of no fewer than 17 lawyers. There was a good deal of concern about this new procedure, particularly about the provisions for industrial injuries benefits of all kinds. I hope it is in order to refer to something relevant to this which has disturbed me.
The last report we had from the Ministry of National Insurance about the working of the scheme from 5th July, 1949, to 31st December, 1950, was the first report on the full working of the scheme. That was because one of the benefits only came into operation on 5th July, 1949, which was 12 months after the scheme had begun. I have been paying particular attention to some of the provisions in this respect because, prior to the new Workmen's Compensation Act coming into operation, several years' experience prompted me to take particular interest in finding out how the new system of adjudication has been working —whether it is fulfilling all our expectations and hopes, or whether it is failing.
For example, Table 26 gives some figures about the medical appeal tribunals and an analysis of decisions given in 1950. We find that the total number of appeals by claimants amounted to 6,598. Does the Parliamentary Secretary regard that number of appeals as disturbingly high? It means that 6,598 applicants were not satisfied with the assessment of their disablement made by the medical boards and consequently took the opportunity open to them under the Act of appealing to the medical appeal tribunal. It is quite clear that the number of cases is increasing, and, therefore, that increased provision has to be made in this Supplementary Estimate.
If the number of appeals increases, the Ministry should give the matter

serious attention. Actually, it is not the business of the Ministry to behave as an employer or as an insurance company covering the employer. I say this factually. This is a service to which the men themselves contribute. I ask the Committee to note that one of the great changes made was that under the Industrial Injuries Act, for the first time in the history of this country and the world, the workers employed in industry made a contribution from their wages to cover the risk of their own accidents. I do not think our example has yet been followed by any other country, although I know that an immense amount of interest has been taken all over the world.
I know that as I am an ex-Minister, and from trade union and other circles with which I am connected. Therefore, the whole scheme and every provision in the scheme is under scrutiny because of its revolutionary departure from the accustomed method of making provision for loss of income, wages and salaries by those who meet with accidents in industry. That is why we are entitled to take this opportunity of examining it.

4.30 p.m.

The Chairman: We cannot deal with the Industrial Injuries Act now. We can only deal with the additional sum which the Ministry are asking for.

Mr. Griffiths: With respect, Sir Charles, this is a Supplementary Estimate of the Ministry of National Insurance. The Industrial Injuries Act is one of the services for which provision is to be made, and, indeed, the point to which I am making particular reference, namely, the medical appeal tribunals, arises out of that Act.

The Chairman: I can allow the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that, but we cannot go through the whole of the details of the working of the Industrial Injuries Act.

Mr. Griffiths: We are being asked to vote a Supplementary Estimate to make increased provision for the medical appeal tribunals. Surely we are entitled to ask why, and we are also entitled to ask whether the Ministry themselves are happy about coming to Parliament to ask for such additional sums.
I have cited the fact that over 6,000 appeals have been made against the decisions of the medical boards. Fifty


per cent. of those appeals succeeded. Surely that is a very big proportion. I thought I saw the Parliamentary Secretary shake his head. Am I not putting the right figures?

Mr. Turton: Yes.

Mr. Griffiths: It disturbs me that 50 per cent. of those who appealed against the decisions of the medical boards found that their appeals were justified. Indeed, awards were made in their favour. I therefore put it to the Parliamentary Secretary, since he is asking for an extra provision of £8,000 for these medical appeal tribunals, that we are entitled to ask him whether he is now satisfied that the machinery is working well. I should be very much happier if no increased provision were asked for this purpose, because I regard it as a matter to be disturbed about. We ought to ask the Minister whether he does not agree that this extra provision calls for a full inquiry as to why he has to come to Parliament and ask for it.
I approach this from the point of view of a principle which I myself adopted as a Minister, namely, the less of the total money available we spend upon adjudication the better. One of the major reasons why people were completely dissatisfied with the old scheme and were anxious for a new one was the enormous proportion of money under the old Workmen's Compensation Act which was wasted in litigation of all kinds. I should be very unhappy if the amount of money spent under the new scheme continued to increase in this way.
These Supplementary Estimates are, in the main, to meet the cost of the schemes brought forward by my right hon. Friend; I would only add to what she has said that since there has been a change of Government there has been a change of policy, and we shall take other opportunities very quickly indeed to bring home to the Government the fact that what the Labour Government gave the old age pensioners with one hand this Government is busily taking away with the other.

Mr. Turton: I think it would be convenient for me to reply to the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on Sub-head E

relating to the medical appeal tribunals. There is an even larger provision for medical appeal tribunals than appears from this Sub-head. The deficiency of the medical appeal tribunals is £14,000, but there will be £6,000 less spent on local tribunals. That is how we reach the net figure of £8,000.
It is true that the number of appeals is increasing. I think on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will realise that that is bound to happen, because this is a growing service, and as we move further away from workmen's compensation to the industrial injuries scheme we shall get more cases and more examinations.
May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the report from which he quoted. He will see that for the whole year in 1949 the examinations numbered 78,000. By 1950 the number had risen to 148,000, and it is still rising. That is why we are having to make greater provision in this Supplementary Estimate for appeals. The proportion of appeals to examinations is very small. There are 17,000 cases being taken every month, and, therefore, the figure of 6,500 which he quoted is a very small proportion for the whole year out of that large number of examinations.
I agree that the figure of 50 per cent. which he mentioned in relation to successful appeals is a very considerable proportion, but that is really a very satisfactory result. It shows the need for this adjudication.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is satisfactory in this sense, that 50 per cent. of the claimants had their appeals upheld by the medical appeal tribunals, but if I were still in the Ministry I would be disturbed because this is one of the things which we intended to get away from. We must remember that 50 per cent. of the appeals —those which succeeded—have succeeded against decisions made by the boards for which the Ministry is responsible. That is why I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a matter to which he should give attention, because the fact that 50 per cent. of the appeals have succeeded indicates that perhaps the medical boards are not functioning as efficiently as they ought. That is my point.

Mr. Turton: When the right hon. Gentleman talks of the appeals succeeding it means a variation in the award;


and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in many cases under the Industrial Injuries Act there are new factors coming along which often have the effect of varying the award. To that extent one can use the term "success." But when one considers the large number of 200,000 cases going through each year, the 3,000 which have involved some variation in the award is a very small proportion.
Let me say a final word on expense. I am fully aware of the point which the right hon. Gentleman made about the importance of keeping down the costs of adjudication. In my early practice at the Bar I had some experience of workmen's compensation, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the expense of the medical appeal tribunals under the Industrial Injuries Act is far less than the expense involved under workmen's compensation.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It would be of great help and advantage if—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can help me —we could in future have an analysis of every pound spent included in this report, how much is spent on administration and how much on litigation. Could the Ministry also give us, as a comparison, how much was spent in those fields prior to 1948 under the old Workmen's Compensation Act?

Mr. Turton: I will take that request into close consideration but quite clearly compliance with the right hon. Gentleman's last request would be impossible as expenditure under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not related to any Ministry.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member will find that in the Ministry, which was the successor of the Home Office in this respect, that information is available for certain principal industries and was provided for us every year.

Mr. T. Price: It is recorded in the Report of the Royal Commission on Workmen's Compensation.

Mr. Turton: That matter will be closely investigated. I hope that with that explanation the Committee will regard this Supplementary Estimate as necessary, and will agree to it.

Dr. Summerskill: Will not the hon. Gentleman answer my questions? I put a series of them.

Mr. Turton: I found it difficult to relate the right hon. Lady's questions, which were cleverly directed, to any particular Subhead. I do not know how I shall keep within the Rules of Order if I answer them.

Dr. Summerskill: Might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tries as hard as I did?

Mr. Turton: I was asked how we are to provide for certain charges which have not yet been incurred and laid before Parliament. I think the right answer is the one given by the late Lord Oxford on an earlier occasion—we shall have to "wait and see." Until we see what legislation is passed by the House, we cannot devise methods of payment out of the funds which we hold to provide for it.

Dr. Summerskill: But the hon. Member knows that it is common practice in the Ministry of National Insurance to provide for certain anticipated expenditure. That is why—as I have already said, pensions cannot fluctuate weekly—last July I provided for certain anticipated expenditure. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that certain charges will be imposed on 1st March. These Supplementary Estimates cover the whole of March. I want to know how his Ministry is to provide for that period.

Mr. Turton: My reply to the right hon. Lady must be that until we have seen what eventual form legislation is to take it would be unwise for us to give the House a clear indication of the provision we are to make from the Fund for that purpose. If I said anything more than that I should be ruled out of order on the subject.

Dr. Summerskill: May I take that as a half-promise, in response to my pressure, that the Government are to increase pensions on Budget day?

Mr. Ross: Under Sub-head A, I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is asking for an extra £790,000 on salaries. We have recently been told that the Government, having discovered that they can dispense with a number of civil servants, have decided to get rid of 10,000. We have also been led to believe that some of these will be accounted for in the Ministry of National Insurance. Yet here we are, between now and 31st March, instead of spending less money on civil


servants, spending more. I think we are entitled to some kind of explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary as to how the cut in the Civil Service is affecting his Department and the amount spent on salaries.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I think that the hon. Member was not in his place when I gave that explanation. I explained how this sum of £790,000 was related to two pay increases, one given in February, 1951, when the right hon. Lady was Minister of National Insurance, and the pay increase awarded in January, 1952. I stated that those two pay increases accounted for £906,000, but that they had been reduced because we had been able to make certain savings in staff, and those savings, effected both by my right hon. Friend's predecessor and my right hon. Friend have amounted, in the course of this current financial year, to 750. That will be an average throughout the year of 500, and that has reduced the Supplementary Estimate from £906,000 to £790,000.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), was not in his place when I was giving all the facts of what was happening in the matter of salaries in relation to these Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Ross: I was in my place and the explanation is a little more explicit now than it was then. What I still want to get at is whether—we are not near 31st March—some anticipated saving consequent on a further cutting down of salary earners within the Ministry of National Insurance has been taken into account.

The Chairman: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not attempt to reply to that as he would be out of order.

Mr. Percy Daines: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), is not trying to encourage the Ministry to undertake any cutting of staff in the Ministry. I do not think the Committee has ever really appreciated the fine service given, and the terrific job undertaken by the previous Minister and his senior officials in creating out of a mass of bits of other Ministries one of the finest services that we have the right to expect.
Something should be said in Parliament in appreciation of the human, sympathetic understanding that this fine public service gives to the public. Everyone of us here knows by the absense of complaints in our postbags the excellent service that is being given. I hope that other hon. Members will, as some of us already do, keep in close touch with their local Ministry office and take a sympathetic interest in it. We are always well received. If I have strayed a trifle from the bounds of order to say a word of praise and appreciation of the magnificent staff of the Ministry I am sure it is due to them.

Mr. Turton: I thank the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), for that very well-deserved tribute to our staff. They have worked wonderfully well, with very little publicity. I would add that savings which we have been able to effect have been caused by the efficiency of our staff in devising more modern methods of doing the work. By that means we have been able to reduce the total number of staff, although that has not been done by turning off members of the staff but chiefly by stopping recruitment. That is how this saving that I talked about has been effected.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I see that savings have been made by closing certain offices throughout the country. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us an undertaking that before any of these offices are closed the advisory committees which have been set up by the Ministry should at least be asked some questions about it and their advice taken into consideration before the closures are brought about?

The Chairman: That is a saving and discussion of it is out of order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £904,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of National Insurance, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the National Insurance Fund and the Industrial Injuries Fund; payments in respect of family allowances; certain expenses in connection with national insurance, industrial injuries insurance, family allowances and workmen's compensation; and sundry other services.

CLASS V. VOTE 10

National Assistance Board

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,980,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the National Assistance Board and of certain Appeal Tribunals; non-contributory old age pensions, including pensions to blind persons; assistance grants, &amp;c.; expenses of re-establishment centres, reception centres, &amp;c.; and the maintenance of certain classes of Poles in Great Britain.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Turton: This Supplementary Estimate relates to two sub-heads. First, on salaries, as I explained on the previous Supplementary Estimate, we are having to take into account the increase in pay awarded in February, 1951, and also the more recent pay increase awarded in January, 1952. Those two increases amount to £315,000 for the National Assistance Board. Also it has been necessary to take on extra staff. The average increase in staff has been 165. The number of those in receipt of assistance went up from 850,000 in 1948 to 1,461,000 on 31st December, 1951. Because of that we had to recruit staff, and the total staff today is just over 9,100. The average increase throughout the year was 165.

Mr. J. Griffiths: When the hon. Gentleman compares the total number of people in receipt of assistance in 1948, does he speak of before 5th July, 1948, or after? Before that date this service was administered by the Public Assistance Committees.

Mr. Turton: I am speaking of after the start of the National Assistance Act. The figure for December, 1950, was 1,349,000. This has necessitated an increased in staff for which the cost in this Estimate is £80,000.
In addition, during the last half year a considerable amount of overtime has been worked to deal with the new scales which came into operation on 3rd September of last year. During the calendar year 1951, 438,000 hours of overtime were worked. Of that time, 300,000 hours were worked during July and August to put the new regulations into force. The staff of the Board did a wonderful piece of work in those summer months. I am sure

the right hon. Lady the former Minister appreciates that they had a great task to adjust all the allowances and to issue the new order books. For that purpose, they had to work the extra overtime.
The second subject under Subhead F deals directly with the increased rates which came into operation in September of last year. In Cmd. 8280 the previous Government estimated the net total cost of that increase in scale as £7 million in a full year. We found that that was an under-estimate. For the proportion of this current year we anticipate that the expenditure will be in the region of £4,500,000.
However, there was a slight overestimate by the right hon. Lady on the cost of National Assistance before the revised scales were issued. She was working on a basis of an average number drawing assistance of some 5,000 more each week than actually was the case. She also over-estimated the annual drawing in the first six months of the current financial year by about 3d. per person per week.
That has resulted in a certain saving which is set off against the £4,500,000 which the new scales will require. That gives us the figure of £3,250,000 which hon. Gentlemen will see in Subhead F—

Mr. J. Griffiths: If the National Assistance Board is to be brought into the administration of the charges under the Bill which I understand we are to consider some day—and which is due to come into operation on 1st March and therefore will cover four weeks of the financial year—has any provision been made for the extra overtime which will be involved?

Mr. Turton: We have made our estimates of overtime and staff required during this year taking into account all relevant factors. There has been an increase in overtime and staff required in addition to what I have mentioned as a result of the actions of the previous Government, as further staff was required to deal with the charges they introduced in the National Health Service.

Mr. Griffiths: We are within a few days of 1st March, but that is the date provided for in the Bill. We are now providing the money needed until the end of March, and therefore we include four


weeks during which, if this Bill eventuates, the Assistance Board will be taking on further work when people bring their prescriptions to the Board to get their money back. Has the hon. Gentleman made any provision for that in this Estimate? If the Bill comes into effect, the Board will have to work a large amount of extra overtime during this four weeks. Has that been taken into account?

Mr. Turton: No. The legislation about the charges to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has not been passed. Therefore, we have not included in these Estimates any provision for extra expenditure.

Mr. Griffiths: I take it that in these Estimates no provision at all is made for the working of this Bill which we are waiting to see?

Mr. Turton: We take the view that it is only in order for us to provide expenditure in connection with legislation which has been passed. It would be wrong for us to ask for expenditure in connection with legislation which is contemplated. When that legislation has been passed we shall bring forward a Supplementary Estimate to deal with the expense involved.
Hon. Members might like to know of one small activity during the year. We have opened the first re-establishment centre ever conducted by the National Assistance Board. We found a suitable site and buildings at the village of Holy Cross, near Clent in Worcestershire. That centre was opened on 22nd June last. The amount of extra expenditure involved is about £2,500. It is an interesting experiment, because we are dealing with one of the most difficult of human problems, involving men who voluntarily try to get re-established but who are not in a sufficiently good condition to require training by the Ministry of Labour.
In the last six months since the centre was opened 69 men have been admitted. It is early yet to say what degree of success this experiment—it is only an experiment—will meet. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will be interested in it. At present the centre takes a maximum of only 20 men at one time. The idea is that when men have become sufficiently re-established by looking after the gardens

and being well-fed and cared for, we try to find employment for them in the neighbourhood. At first, they work in the neighbourhood and remain in the centre. Later, they leave the centre and live elsewhere and continue in their employment. Of the 69 who were there during the centre's first six months, 28 were obtained employment; nine were still in the centre, not having got employment, and of the remainder—

The Chairman: This is going beyond the Estimate. An additional sum is being asked for these re-establishment centres, but we do not want to go into their whole working and results. The question we are discussing is the reason why the original Estimate was too small.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Turton: If you wish, Sir Charles, I shall not continue to tell the Committee of it. There will be another occasion, no doubt, when opportunity can be provided. I hope I have given a sufficiently satisfactory explanation of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We accept your Ruling at once, Sir Charles, but this is an experiment of the utmost importance concerning one of the gravest problems with which we have to deal. There are many reception centres—I remember one in Camberwell. If it is impossible to discuss them today, will the Parliamentary Secretary take an early opportunity of presenting in some way a report on this experiment, which is of great importance and interest?

The Chairman: I quite agree on that point, but I do not think it is in order to discuss it on the Supplementary Estimate.

Dr. Summerskill: Under Sub-head F, on page 43, provision of £3,250,000 is being made for grants for persons in need of assistance. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that this amount was arrived at last July on the assumption that there would be no appreciable extra charge for certain essentials in the homes of pensioners and the very poor.
Subsequently, a new Government is formed and the Government announce that they propose to make certain charges for things which the Ministry of National Insurance should regard as necessities in the home. In my opinion, in the winter


medical treatment for an old person is a necessity, and the minimum that many old people may be called upon to pay throughout the winter months is 2s. a week at 1s. per prescription.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Ministry are not accustomed to anticipating legislation. I cannot agree—that is a little quibble. The Ministry can exercise their discretion on many occasions. They can expect expenditures on assistance—

Mr. Iain MacLeod: The right hon. Lady is wrong, because the original National Assistance Act lays down quite clearly in the definition Section, as she will know, that requirements are not to include any form of medical, aural, dental, etc., care; and the only way in which that principle can be breached is by legislation of the House.
It is by legislation of the House, in the Act of last year, that the charges put on dentures and spectacles in the 1951 Act were included in the purview of the National Assistance Board. That action is in the Bill which is now contemplated, and it would not be competent for any Minister of National Insurance to take action having regard to the definition in the 1947 Act, except by legislation of the House, which the Government are taking.

Dr. Summerskill: I recognise that the hon. Member is something of an authority on this matter, but he will recall—he was in the House on many occasions when I answered Questions at the Box—that last year I was often asked, particularly during the winter, whether the National Assistance officials could give a grant for coal, clothes and so on.

Mr. MacLeod: Not medical care.

Dr. Summerskill: Time after time I said I was proud that the officials of the National Assistance Board could exercise a wide discretion; that an applicant would come to an official and say, "These are my conditions. I live in a big, cold, miserable room. I have to have gas on and coal burning the whole time"; and the official could exercise discretion. Therefore, it is quite clear that if the Bill is to be introduced, unless the Government are prepared to be absolutely callous to the very poor, the officials will have to exercise their discretion.
This sum which is in the Estimates today will be handled by the officials, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary is quite wrong when he says he can estimate only for things which are legislated for. It is possible for his Department to anticipate certain expenditures and to provide for them. I feel particularly strongly about this because I was responsible for the sum last July; the Estimate is identical to it. But I am very much aware that the people for whom we legislated then will be called upon between 1st and 31st March to incur expenditure which has not been provided for.
I shall not, however, press the Parliamentary Secretary on this. I recognise that he is in a very difficult position, and I recall what he has just said on the other Estimate. When I pressed him about how the people suffering from byssinosis, silicosis, and so on, were to be provided for, he said that he could not anticipate legislation. If I am mollified, I understand from that that the Government are going to increase allowances and pensions in order to meet these extra expenditures.
We on this side of the House will sit back and wait. The Budget, I understand, is to be introduced on 4th March. We shall await that time with some impatience, but I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that if the pensions and allowances are not increased to cover these expenditures, hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House will come to his Department and charge him and his right hon. Friend for not having made provision in the Estimates for these things, which are essential to the poorest people.

Mr. MacLeod: I want to add only one sentence to the interruption I made earlier. I recognise that the right hon. Lady is as deeply concerned as myself or anybody else on this matter. It is not true that we can equate coal, clothing and the other things with medical care, because medical care, and that alone, is the only exclusion from requirements in the 1947 Act. I am pretty sure that we could not anticipate, as the right hon. Lady suggests, without introducing legislation.

Dr. Summerskill: Of course, medical care was not included because under the


Labour Government medical treatment was free. But I am pleased to say that the administration of the Ministry of National Insurance is fairly flexible. I dare to say that when another Government come into power and propose to charge an old person for something which is as essential to them as warmth—medical treatment — that Government should at least be prepared to say, "Let the officials exercise their discretion in this matter."

Mr. MacLeod: It needs legislation.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The Minister said in explaining sub-head A that 438,000 hours of over-time had been worked, of which 300,000 related to the new regulations; and he anticipates that some further time may have to be worked. We should like to be satisfied in this regard about the proposed economies in reducing the Civil Service staff as far as the hon. Gentleman's Department are concerned. Is it not a very bad policy to cut down staff and at the same time to pay over-time? I should have thought that there was nothing to be said for overtime if it could be avoided, as far as the personal help of the staff is concerned and on grounds of cost alone.
I hope we may be satisfied that the staff will not be reduced to such a minimum that when the requirements of some new legislation have to be dealt with, the staff have to work overtime. Under the Conservative Government, this Department is likely to be working over-time—the National Assistance Board certainly. It seems a very unwise move to reduce the staff.
On Sub-head F, could the Minister tell us how much of the £3,250,000 represents additional assistance grants? A number of items come under this heading, which is not broken down at all. From what the Minister said, all the money has not been taken up. The Minister suggested that there had been over-estimating to the tune of 5,000.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Lady had estimated that during her period of office there would be 5,000 more under National Assistance and they would be receiving an average of 18s. 11d. per week. I should like to correct that

figure if it is incorrect. In fact they received 3d. less each week than was estimated, but that had all been changed in the second half of the year.

Mr. Davies: It is remarkable accountancy in a time of rising prices if there is 3d. less and 5,000 people have had less benefit than they expected.
I do not want to discuss the savings but the expenditure. Is this £3,250,000 enough to meet the demands of the National Assistance Board in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, because this arises out of legislation and what was done in this House six or eight months ago. Apart from the point raised by my right hon. Friend as to impending legislation and extra costs arising from the payments for prescriptions for medical benefits which have erstwhile been available without payment, there are rising costs to be met by old age pensioners which have been going on over the past months and which arise out of discretionary allowances. If we take the question of coke, or special nourishment, obviously the income of an old age pensioner, like that of any other family person, is of less value than it was last July.
I want to know whether in those circumstances this sum is adequate to meet the problem. If there is this remarkable saving has it come about because people do not know about the payments to which they are entitled, or is there a clear understanding in the departments and can it be shown that there is uniform administration through the country? Whatever it is I contend that the present sum is quite inadequate for the needs of the people for whom it is sought to provide. If the Minister finds himself short of money I hope he will not hesitate to come to the House because we shall support him on this item wholeheartedly.

Mr. George Chetwynd: When we were debating the Regulations last July I made a special appeal to the then Minister to say whether we could get greater elasticity in the interpretation of what were special allowances for clothing, fuel, extra medical attention, and so on. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us a more detailed breakdown of this £3,250,000 in order that we may form an opinion as to whether


there has been any improvement in the granting of clothing allowances to these people who are in need.
It seems to me that this is necessary, as throughout the past few months there has been a growing increase in the price of clothing and if the present Government proposals for doing away with the utility scheme come into being, there will be a steeper increase. If their present policy of whittling away the food subsidies is to go on there will be a great increase in the price of food. We ought therefore to get a raising of the standards of these extra payments. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary can deal with that point?
When we were discussing these matters last July, there was a general understanding that all people receiving National Assistance would receive the equivalent of the 4s. increase given in retirement pension, but we have been finding in the last few months a number of anomalies by which certain people have not got the full benefit of that increase. I refer particularly to those living in local authority homes and hostels.
The previous arrangement was that they should have 5s. pocket money each week for themselves and 21s. should go to the local authority for maintenance. When the increase of 4s. was made, in a large number of cases this was taken by the local authority to meet increased costs and those in hostels only received 5s. with which to meet extra costs for tobacco, entertainment and the little things they like to buy. Will the Parliamentary Secretary take that into account and if it can be covered by these extra assistance grants. Can he let us know, so that people in these hostels and homes may get the full benefits we intended them to have when we brought in the 4s. increase?
5.15 p.m.
The other category of pensioner concerned is the man and wife on National Assistance who before the increase was made were getting 43s. 6d. They understood quite clearly that they would get an 8s. increase yet we find that when it is adjusted they get 6s. 6d. and in fact they are relatively 1s. 6d. worse off than the retirement pensioners. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any information as to how that problem has been dealt

with in the past few months while he has been in office?
Another point which concerns us very much is that we all understood that when the charges for teeth and spectacles were levied, old age pensioners and people on a low income level would be exempt. Yet we find that in a number of cases when old age pensioners go to the Assistance Board because they have some reserve of one kind or another—

The Chairman: Could that be done without legislation?

Mr. Chetwynd: Oh, yes.

The Chairman: I am suggesting that it could not be done without legislation.

Mr. Turton: What the hon. Member is suggesting would require legislation.

Mr. Chetwynd: It has never been made clear to us how these charges were to be levied on the old age pensioner. I understand that an average of six weeks' resources is taken into account and they are charged accordingly. If this is out of order I shall have to leave the point—

Mr. J. Griffiths: Do you, Sir Charles, regard regulations, which can be submitted by the Ministry on behalf of the National Assistance Board, as being legislation?

The Chairman: No, Regulations are not legislation.

Mr. Griffiths: Since, as a matter of fact, apart from the basic Act of 1947, all changes that are made in the provision of assistance are made by Regulations, I presume that my hon. Friend is in order.

The Chairman: If that is so, certainly the hon. Member is in order.

Mr. Chetwynd: I thought I was in order. This is governed by Regulations and to my mind the Regulation is very obscure and is not understood by the old age pensioners because in many cases they have had to pay for teeth and spectacles. A great hardship is being caused to these people by these Regulations, and I doubt if this sum includes sufficient extra funds for those people. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants more than the present amount he ought to ask for more to meet the anomalies with which I have been dealing.
My final point is this. As things are today and with living conditions as we know them, I am certain that this amount is not enough to meet the real needs of those who are receiving National Assistance, and it seems to me that the proposed legislation of the Government and the anticipated Budget proposals will mean that before long the Parliamentary Secretary will have to come again and ask for an increase. I can promise him on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee that we shall meet that very readily.

Mr. Steele: I should like to refer to item F of this £3¼ million. I should like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) about these descretionary powers. I should like to know what amount of this £3¼ million is to be used for this particular purpose. There has been a great deal of criticism on these benches on this subject, and we should like to know the amount which is to be given to local officers under the discretionary powers and whether that sum will be adequate.
I should like next to inquire what amount is included in this sum which ought to be borne by the Ministry of National Insurance. When the increased rates of assistance were introduced last July, they covered a large number of widows. Those widows are now able to receive National Assistance benefit, but they actually ought to be receiving the full widow's pension from the Ministry of National Insurance.
The position about them arises in this way. If after 5th July, 1948, three years have elapsed and a man has a contribution of 156 stamps, should his wife become a widow she would be entitled to the full pension of 30s. a week. The position is unfortunately different for people who were in insurance prior to 5th July, 1948. Their insurance can go back to July, 1938, and if in voluntary contributions there has been a lapse for a month or two, the widow, while entitled to a pension, would in fact get a reduced amount of benefit. It seems to me unfair that one woman whose husband has been a contributor for many years, has to accept a reduced pension because of a

lapse during that period, whereas the widow of a contributor who only entered the scheme since 5th July, 1948, gets the full amount. The widow with the reduced amount can claim assistance from the National Assistance Board under item F but—

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Member suggesting that this could be done under the National Insurance Act without amending legislation?

Mr. Steele: It could be done by regulation.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member was Parliamentary Secretary to this Ministry; is he now suggesting that the Act introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) lays down that these conditions can be altered in this way—because that is something entirely new to me?

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I assist the Parliamentary Secretary and my old Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), and support him in what he is saying? The National Insurance Act gives the Minister of National Insurance wide powers to do various kinds of things by regulation, and this has gone on since 1948.

Mr. Steele: I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for coming to my assistance, as he has so often done in the past. I want to bring this issue to the attention of the Minister, because it is important. Let me repeat the position. If a man has come into insurance since 5th July, 1948, and has 156 contributions, his widow is entitled to the whole pension of 30s. per week, whereas the widow of a man who has been in insurance from 5th July, 1938, and even longer, and has been paying voluntary contributions but has had a slight lapse in making those contributions, will only get a reduced widow's pension. In my opinion she ought to enjoy the same rights as the widow of the other pensioner to whom I have referred.
I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this only because it means that the widow with the smaller pension is being paid a contribution out of National Assistance which ought to be paid out of the National Insurance


Fund, and, further, that widow has to have two books instead of one. It would be much better if this matter could be looked at in the light of the facts which I have given to the Committee.

Mr. James Hudson: I want to return to the question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), as to whether the sums provided are anything like adequate in the situation which faces us today. The short answer, as my hon. Friend said before leaving the question to the tender mercies of the Minister responsible, is that it is inadequate for the purpose because of the Government now in existence.
This sum of £3¼ million was arrived at by Parliament in July, 1951, for the standards of assistance which then prevailed. The rate of regression that is going on in every Department of the Government, particularly those concerned with the poorer people of the community, makes it perfectly clear that the sum here mentioned is totally inadequate. I have no doubt that before we finish with this problem there will be further Supplementary Estimates to meet the poverty that this Government are increasingly creating.
I want to ask a question about these travelling and incidental expenses. The sum mentioned is only £5,000. Recently we have been discussing one item where the travelling and incidental expenses for one person—or was it three?—came almost to that amount. I do not suppose I can insist on that item being considered in this Supplementary Estimate, but I can insist that there ought to be very careful consideration given to the additional expenses that are being placed increasingly upon the poor people. I imagine that this figure of £5,000 will be mainly travelling expenses for officials.
5.30 p.m.
I am thinking about people in my constituency who, as they are evicted from their homes, are increasingly compelled to go for National Assistance, and who end up by taking the only shelter available to them, not in my constituency, but far away over the borders in other constituencies. For example, very often the best that the Middlesex County Council—the responsible authority in this matter—can do for them is to obtain at the expense of the London County

Council a little spare accommodation that may, for example, be found in places like Paddington, Marylebone, or other areas in London. The consequence is that the man who has been evicted from his home, takes his family far away from both his place of work and the school to which his children have been accustomed. Thus very considerable additions are made to the travelling expenses of people of that kind.
I do not know whether a Government led by a right hon. Gentleman who goes cadging to private companies for his expenses and a Government that permits that sort of thing, and cheers that sort of thing when it is accounted for in the House will trouble its head very much about the proper payment of expenses. But I am suggesting very seriously to the Minister that when he comes to consider the matter and the amount that is put aside under this Supplementary Estimate for this purpose, there ought to be a new survey of the conditions now being increasingly imposed upon poor people by way of travelling expenses owing to the very inadequate arrangements being made for them.

Mr. J. Griffiths: With the permission of the House, I wish to raise one point, because I think it is something to which we ought to give our attention. I am not raising it as a controversial party matter. I think it very important that there should be ample provision for considering these arrangements. We get Supply days and these Supplementary Estimates, but we are obviously very greatly restricted in the matters we can raise in a debate of this kind. Were it not for this National Assistance scheme at the present moment, all these questions would be discussed by scores of public assistance committees all over the country. Indeed, it is one of the problems to which we have to give attention, and we have far fewer opportunities of doing that than before.
There are two or three questions I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. In the first place, let us make it quite clear that this Supplementary Estimate for the National Assistance Board covers a period up to 31st March. That being so, no contingent fund is provided for anything that may happen on 4th March when the Chancellor of the Exchequer opens his Budget. We had forecasts in another place yesterday of what may hap-


pen on 4th March. Far be it from me to say whether those forecasts are accurate or not. We have had suggestions and forecasts about food subsidies and about all kinds of things that may take place on 4th March when the Budget is presented.
This is the last opportunity we shall have before 31st March of making sums available to the Assistance Board. Therefore, there are to be 27 days between the opening of the Budget and the end of the financial year for which the Ministry now presumably asks for the last Estimate. It is quite clear, therefore, that no provision of any kind is made except the one in this Supplementary Estimate.
As I understand it, this provision is required in the main, if not entirely, to meet the increase in assistance consequent upon the raising of the scale last July. It is quite clear, therefore, that from 4th March to 31st March no provision has been made by the Government for what may happen after 4th March. That means that for about four weeks the poor people of this country will have to stand up to what the Budget deals out without any provision from the Assistance Board.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any information on the number of appeals made to the Assistance Board arising out of the fact that—I have had cases in my own constituency, and I believe many of my hon. Friends have also had them—the net increase, owing to the scales for which this provision is made of income received by those on National Assistance, has been less than the net increase provided for those not in receipt of assistance.
This is rather an important point, and I should like to know on what basis this sum of £3¼ million is raised. I hope the Parliamentay Secretary will be able to reply on that point. I will cite an example. We raised the basic pension from 26s. to 30s. a week. All those retired people, aged people, who prior to the increase were receiving 26s. now receive 30s.; but there are still some people who do not apply for National Assistance because some of the bad odour of the Poor Law still clings to it. To that extent our scheme has not been a success. Indeed, it is a measure of our failure. We intended it to be a complete departure from the Poor Law, but there are still

some people whom we have not yet convinced that going to the Assistance Board is different from going to the Poor Law.
I know of cases, and my hon. Friends know of others, where the net increase received by persons on National Assistance was less than 4s. That is the problem. I am sure that was never the intention of either the Government or of this House. It must be a slip-up, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain it. I do not know what explanation he can give, but there is always the possibility of producing Regulations within 24 hours. I remember in 1945 particular Regulations being withdrawn in less than 24 hours. One can put these things through very quickly.
Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary for a reply. I do not know whether this £3,250,000 is provided on the basis of the way in which these Regulations are now operated. I am sure that when we passed these Regulations unanimously and agreeably, no hon. Member thought that the people receiving assistance would have less of an increase than the people who were not receiving assistance. Could any of us have thought that persons receiving assistance would get less than the 4s. we are giving to others?
I understand that is what has happened. How did it happen? This assessment, this Supplementary Estimate, has been made by the Board. Has it been made on the basis that those on assistance as well as those on benefit are entitled to the 4s. 0d. increase? Or has it been made on some other estimate, and if so, what? That is the first question I wish to ask.
Let me now ask something else. Is any provision made in this Supplementary Estimate for making known to persons their entitlement to assistance? I raise that point because it is very important. I hope I am in order in giving an example and in referring to cases which have come to my notice three and a half years after the National Assistance Act has been in operation.
One of the provisions of that Act, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and I were responsible and of which we are very proud, was a provision which I discovered as late as last week is still not known in


some places. We provided that where in a household there is a person, male or female, of 16 years of age or over who, because of physical or mental disability, is unable to earn his or her livelihood, that person is entitled to claim assistance in his or her own right irrespective of the income of the family. In other words, we recognised that where there is such a person—and there are tragic cases of parents who have carried the burden of a son or daughter who has not grown up mentally and yet is not bad enough to go into an institution—that person represents a burden which ought to be shared by everyone. We provided for that in the Act, and yet there are people who even now do not know about it.
I think we can claim that there never was a time when contact between Members of the House of Commons and their constituents was closer than it is now. We have what are called "political surgeries" everywhere, and when people come to see us we advise them and guide them. But I believe that the National Assistance Board has a responsibility in this matter. I give the Board a full meed of praise, but as a good, candid friend I must say that this is one of the things at which it has failed. It has failed to realise its duty to inform the public. Therefore, I should like to know whether there is a provision in this Supplementary Estimate to make available to the public knowledge of the assistance which the Board was set up to provide, for which the Act makes provision and which the Regulations implement.
Since I have spoken very candidly and have offered some criticism of the Board, I should like to join at the same time in paying tribute to the staffs both of the Board and of the Ministry of National Insurance. We have had now three-and-a-half years' experience of this service. It was a big venture and a big change, but on the whole I think it has worked well. But certainly at the end of five years, I think there should be a complete review of all these schemes. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister of National Insurance that now, after three-and-a-half years' experience of working these schemes and in the present changed circumstances, the time has come when they ought to present to the House a complete and comprehensive report of how the schemes are

working so that we can give full attention to them.
I believe these schemes have become a model to the whole world, but we have a duty to see that we are not only proud of the schemes but that we shall continue to be proud of them. I hope that in future we shall have many more opportunities, and perhaps opportunities wider than those now prevailing, of dealing with services that vitally affect millions of our fellow people.
I beg the pardon of the Parliamentary Secretary for not having given notice of some of the questions which I have asked. If he cannot answer them now, I shall not complain at all, but I hope that some of my questions, and doubtless others put by my hon. Friends, can have attention and that in due course he will be able to reply to us in writing, or in some other way.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I shall do my best to answer the questions put to me by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those to which I cannot reply today I will deal with by correspondence later. First, I should like to clear a little of the misunderstanding which I think arises in the minds of hon. Members on this question of staffs. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) seemed to think that we were cutting down the staff of the National Assistance Board. That is not what we are doing at present. The number of staff in post on 1st January, 1952, was 9,137.

Mr. Edward Davies: It may be that the hon. Gentleman is not cutting down, but he said earlier that the Board was not recruiting, which is the normal process, and surely to that extent there is a reduction.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member has confused two Votes. I was dealing earlier with the Vote of the Ministry of National Insurance and I stated what was the position. I am now dealing with the Vote of the National Assistance Board. Unfortunately—as I regard it—the number of those on assistance has grown considerably in recent years. I gave the figure for 31st December last year. One month later, at the end of January, 1952, the number was 1,486,056.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman please give the previous figure?

Mr. Turton: The figure I gave for the previous year was, I think, 1,349,000. That shows an increase over the year, and an increase over the figure at the end of December—which was 1,461,000—of some 25,000. By reason of the fact that the numbers are growing—which is a matter of great concern to hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee—we have had to increase the staff of the National Assistance Board in the course of the year from a figure of something like an average of 8,913 in the earlier part of the year to a figure of 9,137. Therefore, there is no question of cutting down. The Board requires the staff.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Would it be true to say that the increase has come about exactly because many people are beginning to get to know about the National Assistance Board and the things which they can claim, and that, furthermore, in the previous two years many were able to manage without assistance but that with the increased cost of living they are now struggling and are going to the Board for help?

Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman has given his interpretation. It might be so. I think it is agreed by both sides of the Committee that the very large increase in the cost of living that has gone on for the last two years has made a great many more people go reluctantly to assistance, and it is our duty to provide for that.
I think there is a little confusion as to how we reached this figure of £3¼ million. First let me clear out of the way many of the questions that were asked by saying that I am dealing, in this £3¼ million, with the revised scale of rates which was made by the Assistance Board and passed by this House when the right hon. Lady opposite was Minister of National Insurance. At that time the Government of the day and the Assistance Board anticipated that the additional expenditure for the part of, the year from 3rd September, 1951, to 31st March, 1952, would be of the order of £4 million.
In fact, it has worked out at something in the region of £4½ million, and that is a figure that I am asking for in that £3¼ million. But there was a slight error in

the previous assessment of what was going to happen for the first part of last year—and here I should like to correct a figure which I gave in an interjection. The original Estimate was based on a figure of those drawing assistance and it was estimated that they would get an average of 18s. a week. In fact, during the first half of the year, those drawing assistance only received, on an average, 17s. 8¾d. a week. By reason of that fact the gross Supplementary Estimate is reduced from £4½ million to £3¼ million. Those are the facts.
There were a number of detailed questions put to me. I should like to answer the question put by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), on whether we had taken into account what was going to happen about the Budget. How could we do that? The right hon. Gentleman has himself had a distinguished career as Minister of National Insurance and Colonial Secretary. I cannot believe that when he was holding those offices he would have made provision to introduce Supplementary Estimates to deal with a Budget if it had not been introduced.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Of course not, for the simple reason that in my time the Budget was not introduced on 4th March but after the end of the financial year, and an Estimate would have been made for the new year; but this is a Government of non-planners. Their left hand does not know what their right hand is doing, and their right hand does not know what their left hand is doing. This is a Government which introduced a new date for the financial year—4th March—and therefore I am perfectly right. Unless the Minister has made some provision for any extra, there is nothing for those four weeks.

Mr. Turton: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will get away with that. If the Budget were after the end of the financial year, on his argument in this debate, he should be devising a Supplementary Estimate to provide the extra expenditure in the Budget, and he did not on those occasions because he did not know what was in the Budget. Certainly the Chairman of the National Assistance Board does not know what is in the Budget, and therefore no provision can be made by way of Supplementary Estimate. We are satisfied, from what we


know at the present time, that we are making sufficient provision for what we will require under the existing Regulations.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry to interrupt, but this is very important. Are we entitled to understand, therefore, that, whatever happens to this Bill, its provisions will not begin to affect those on assistance until after 31st March of this year?

Mr. Turton: I think the right hon. Gentleman has now changed from discussing the Budget to discussing a Bill which has not yet received its Second Reading. In this Supplementary Estimate we have made provision for what we will require under existing Regulations and under existing legislation, and I believe that to be in accordance with the normal custom of this House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me how many appeals there had been. The answer is 10,000, out of applicants who number something like 1½ million; so I think he will agree that it is not a very large proportion of appeals. He also asked me how many people there were who were not drawing the full 4s. a week increase. The position is that 103,000 out a total of 1,358,000 have not received the full benefit of the 4s. a week increase. In many cases, those were people who were paid on a board and lodging basis, who have not received an increased charge for board and lodging, and therefore their pocket money has increased by 1s. under the Regulations introduced by the right hon. Lady. Therefore they come in the category of an increase of less than 4s. a week.

Mr. Griffiths: I want to get this clear, because I think it is important for the Committee to realise it. First of all, there are 103,000 recipients—people in receipt of assistance—who did not get the 4s. a week. That is the position. Speaking for myself—and I think I am also speaking for the Committee—I can only say that I am very sorry to hear that. I hope it is not what we intended. There is a large proportion of the 103,000 who will only have received a net increase of 1s. I gather that is right. I do not say the whole 103,000 but a large proportion of them will have received only 1s. There it is. The hon. Gentleman did indicate to us that the Assistance Board had over-

estimated the amount that would be required. Do I gather that is right?

Mr. Turton: Under-estimated.

Mr. Griffiths: Under-estimated. Was the estimate made on the basis that there would be 103,000 people who would not get that 4s. extra? Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask the Board, because this is rather important? If we decide that owing to the cost of living and circumstances generally, people who are in receipt of benefit are to get 4s. a week we want them to get it. All this is a matter of drawing up Regulations, which begin with the Board and the draftsmen and so on.
I am sure it is the desire of all of us not to make this a party issue. From my knowledge, some of the people who have only had the 1s. increase were in greater need than those who got the 4s. This is something that ought to be looked at. It is disturbing to know that there are 103,000 old age pensioners who have not had that 4s. increase.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Turton: May I try to clear this up? I think there is a little misunderstanding. Of course, there is no party issue in this. We all want to see that each applicant is treated fairly and justly.
A great proportion of the applicants will be receiving assistance and a rent allowance. Those applicants will be receiving the increase that the right hon. Gentleman anticipated. There will be other applicants who are not paid in that way but who are paid a sum for board and lodging and an additional sum in respect of their expenditure. In those cases the increase of 1s. which I have mentioned is an increase for personal expenditure. In cases where the lodger has not had to pay an increase for board and lodging, he has not had an increased grant for that purpose from the Assistance Board, but, of course, where he has had an increased amount to pay for board and lodging, then he has received that increase from the Assistance Board.

Mr. Griffiths: I will be perfectly frank here; I admit that it is some time since I was giving detailed consideration to this matter. Where does the 1s. come from? This House did not vote an increase of 1s. for anybody. We decided that there should be an increase of 4s. for pensioners. The


position now, as I understand it, is that if persons who pay board and lodging have had the cost of that board and lodging increased, then they receive the increased grant. Is there any limit to that? Assume that a man is receiving 26s.—the standard retirement benefit. Do I understand that in addition to the 26s. he is paid a supplementary amount to meet the difference between that and the cost of his board and lodging, plus 1s. and, if so, where does the 1s. come from?

Mr. Turton: I had hoped that I was explaining the position satisfactorily, and I do not want more confusion to be created by the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. The position is that before the 1948 Act, these persons on board and lodging received the board and lodging amount plus 5s. for personal expenditure.

Mr. Shurmer: There were quite a number of these cases in Birmingham. In some cases the people on the Assistance Board's list were receiving a higher amount than the old age pensioner was receiving. To bring them into line, when the increase was granted we could give the man receiving the Assistance Board's scales only 1s. If we gave him 4s. he would be far above the 30s. which the old age pensioner was receiving.

Mr. Turton: What I was explaining was that before the 1948 Act they received a personal allowance of 5s., plus board and lodging. That scale was increased until they received a personal allowance of 7s. 6d., plus board and lodging. The Regulations introduced by the right hon. Lady, the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), who is no longer in her place, increased that amount last year to 8s. 6d. Let there be no misunderstanding about this. I have here the Explanatory Memorandum produced by the previous Government. There is no party question about this, and I will read out paragraph 7, which deals with the point:
Assistance sometimes has to be fixed by reference to considerations which make the scale rates inapplicable: for example allowances to meet an inclusive charge for board and lodging and allowances fixed by reference to an amount received from a Local Authority before 5th July, 1948, which, in a small proportion of cases, was higher than the amount payable under the current Regulations. In such cases the applicant's income may not be increased, or may be increased by less than the normal amount.

What I am telling the House, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question—and he asked me the figure—is that the total number of these cases is 103,000. He must not be surprised, and his colleagues must not be surprised, to find that there was this number, because it was foreseen in the Regulations.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not the landlady who is suffering in these cases, because a large number have not increased their charges to the lodger by the 4s. Where she does increase the charge, by no matter what amount, he is recouped by the Assistance Board. Has anything been done to let the Assistance people know that it is possible to do so?

Mr. Turton: Where the board and lodging charge has been increased reasonably, then the Assistance Board have a discretion to look into the matter. It is within their discretion. I will not say anything from this Box to suggest that everybody should charge more for board and lodging, and I am sure that on more mature reflection the hon. Member will not wish me to do so.
There are only two other points I want to mention. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked me about the grants for clothing. They do not come under this sub-head and I should be out of order in dealing with them. What we are dealing with here is the increase in the expenditure occasioned by the new Regulations which came into operation on 3rd September of last year.
I want to answer the right hon. Gentleman's query about publicity. I attach great importance to this. As he knows, the National Assistance Board are a growing service. They have some 334 offices throughout the country, and we are using over 1,010 caller stations. The Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Labour and National Service are co-operating in bringing to the attention of those who visit those offices—the vast proportion of the population—the provisions under the National Assistance Act and under these Regulations. We attach great importance to co-operation from Members of all parties in letting their constituents know what are their rights under these Acts. I hope this is a sufficient explanation of the points raised, and if there are any which I have not answered, I will deal with them in correspondence.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,980,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the National Assistance Board and of certain Appeal Tribunals; non-contributory old age pensions, including pensions to blind persons; assistance grants, etc.; expenses of re-establishment centres, reception centres, etc.; and the maintenance of certain classes of Poles in Great Britain.

CLASS IX. VOTE 1

Ministry of Supply

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply for the supply of munitions, aircraft, common-user and other articles and atomic energy and for research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto; for administrative services in connection with the iron and steel, non-ferrous and light metals and engineering industries; for the operation of the Royal Ordnance Factories and official car services; and for miscellaneous supplies and services.

Mr. Edelman: On a point of order. For the convenience of the House, would it be possible for Votes 1 and 2 to be discussed together?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Not on a Supplementary Estimate. They must be taken separately.

6.9 p.m.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): This Supplementary Estimate contains two distinct elements. The first consists of excess expenditure of some £51,300,000, which is offset by savings amounting to £53 million. The second element consists of a deficiency in the appropriations-in-aid amounting to some £52 million. Perhaps the most interesting part of the Supplementary Estimate is that dealing with these expected deficiencies in the appropriations-in-aid because it reveals the progress of the deliveries of equipment and armaments to the three Services by the Ministry of Supply.
The deficiencies in the appropriations-in-aid in fact provide a rough and ready measure of the extent to which the

defence production programme of the Ministry of Supply has fallen behind schedule. The short-fall in the deliveries by the Ministry of Supply to the three Services amounts to £21 million during the present financial year, which is the equivalent of about 7 per cent. of the original estimate of deliveries to them of £315 million.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Will the Minister say where he gets the £21 million from?

Mr. Sandys: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. The explanation is this. If he looks at page 71 of the book the right hon. Gentleman will see that Sub-head Z: Appropriations in Aid, Production Receipts (1) (a), (b) and (c), shows the expected deficiencies in deliveries to the Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry. If he adds these together he will find they amount to £36 million. Of this £36 million, £15 million is a refund due to the Service Departments because there was an over payment in the previous year. So we have to deduct £15 million from £36 million, which leaves £21 million. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman drew my attention to it, because it is not shown in the printed figures.
We must not, however, forget that the original Estimates for the financial year 1951–52 were drawn up on the basis of the £3,600 million re-armament programme, and took no account of the decision to increase that programme to £4,700 million. In fact, the late Minister of Defence explained to the House that the adoption of this larger programme would involve additional expenditure for defence during the current year of the order of £150 million. The proportion of this increased figure applicable to deliveries to the Services by the Ministry of Supply may be taken as being about £55 million.
In order, therefore, to strike a balance we must add this £55 million to the original estimate of £315 million. This gives us a total of £370 million. That represents the value of the deliveries which should have been made this year to the three Services by the Ministry of Supply in order to fulfil the requirements of the £4,700 million re-armament programme. This target of £370 million must be compared with the figure of actual deliveries,


which we expect will be about £294 million by the end of the financial year. This shows an estimated overall shortfall of £76 million, or about one fifth.
6.15 p.m.
This is not, of course, the occasion for me to go into details of production, but I thought that the Committee would like to have these figures, which enable the Supplementary Estimate which I am now moving to be seen in its proper perspective. I now propose to give the Committee some detailed information about these Supplementary Estimates under the various Sub-heads under which they appear in the printed book.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying certain points, and it is exceedingly interesting. He told us that the Ministry of Supply's deliveries to the Services should have been £370 million under the enlarged programme, but that, in point of fact, they will be only £294 million. I think that that is roughly what the right hon. Gentleman said. But where do the £50 million go on the goods, bought mostly abroad, and in respect of which we are now being asked to pass Supplementary Estimates—clothing, machine tools, and so on? Are they already taken into account in the £294 million, or should they be added to the £294 million?

Mr. Sandys: Clothing deliveries, which are an important item, are included in the £294 million.
I now turn to Sub-head A which deals with salaries and wages. The original Estimate was £6,671,000. We are now asking for an additional £750,000. This is required to meet approved pay increases, increased overtime working, and the wages of additional staff. The pay increases and the increased overtime together account for two-thirds of the Supplementary Estimate. that is to say, about £500,000.
As regards Sub-head B.2, Stores, Materials and Services for Research and Experimental Establishments, the original Estimate was £13 million. We are now asking for an additional £1 million. This is to meet increased expenditure mainly due to two factors: first, the general rise in prices; and secondly to the welcome acceleration which is taking place in the research and development programme,

particularly in the very important sphere of guided weapons. This Supplementary Estimate also makes provision for the purchase of additional raw materials for atomic energy.
I come now to Sub-head B.4, Loan for the Production of Uranium. The original Estimate was for £1 million. We are asking for an additional sum of £800,000. This Estimate provides for a loan to five South African gold mining companies to enable them to erect special treatment plant to recover uranium from gold ore. The original Estimate had to be submitted to the Committee before precise information was available about the cost of this plant and the progress which was likely to be made in erecting it during the current financial year. It was not until late in the year that a reliable Estimate of £1,800,000 was obtained. That is the reason for the Supplementary Estimate.
I come now to Sub-head C, Royal Ordnance Factories. The original Estimate was for £30 million and we are asking for an additional sum of £4 million. This increase is due mainly to the expansion in the production of the Royal Ordnance Factories which resulted from the adoption of the £4,700 million programme. The expanded programme necessitated the purchase of more materials, and, as the Committee knows, the prices of these materials have been going up steadily throughout the year. A small part of the excess expenditure is due to increases in pay and overtime working in the Ordnance Factories.
I come now to Sub-head F.1, Clothing and Textiles. The original Estimate was for £38 million, and the additional sum for which we now ask is £37½ million. In fact, we are asking for the original Estimate to be very nearly doubled. This is the biggest item in the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee. There are several reasons for this very large increase in expenditure. In the first place, the original Estimate was based on the £3,600 million programme and the expansion of the programme to £4,700 million involved an increase of £12 million under the heading of clothing and textiles. The second factor is that the price we have had to pay for cloth and textiles has risen very considerably during the year. There has also been a considerable rise in the cost of making


up the clothing. Let me quote to the Committee just two examples. Greatcoats which a year ago cost £3 12s. now cost £4 13s. Certain standard blankets cost £4 a year ago, whereas we now have to pay over £5 for them.
Another major factor in this increase of expenditure has been the changing situation in the textile industry. Early last year it looked as though there might be considerable difficulty in placing the large volume of orders to meet the re-armament programme. For this reason, and also because of the favourable balance of payments in E.P.U., the late Government placed large orders for textiles and clothing on the Continent, although prices there were slightly higher than in this country.
However, by the autumn there were clear signs that a slump was taking place in the textile and clothing industries. We therefore decided in November to place no further orders for textiles and clothing abroad, except in rare cases where the article was urgently needed by the Services and could not be supplied in the time required by firms in the United Kingdom.
At the same time, as a matter of policy the Government decided to place all the orders it could as quickly as possible so as to make some contribution towards relieving the unemployment which was developing in this industry. A proportion of these new orders will, in fact, be delivered during the present financial year and will have to be paid for before the end of March. That is another factor which increases the Supplementary Estimate for clothing and textiles.
The Committee may also like to know that about £3 million of the Supplementary Estimate under this sub-head arises from the supply of improved winter clothing to our troops in Korea. The main Estimates for 1951–52 had already been submitted before the requirements and specifications for this improved winter clothing were received. Expenditure on it has therefore, to be included as a Supplementary Estimate.
The last sub-head, M.3, deals with machine tools. The original Estimate was for £30 million and we are asking for an additional sum of £7¼ million. This sub-head provides for the purchase abroad of machine tools for the defence programme, both for Government factories

and for contractors who are working on defence contracts. In the case of the contractors, the machine tools are either leased or sold outright. This Supplementary Estimate is almost entirely due to the decision to expand the re-armament programme from £3,600 million to the £4,700 million.
This expansion of the programme has necessitated the purchase of a great number of additional machine tools which are, to a large extent, required for the accelerated programme of aircraft production. Out of 19,000 machine tools ordered from abroad 3,800 have already arrived. Others are expected to arrive shortly and will have to be paid for during the present financial year.
I think I have probably said enough to introduce this Supplementary Estimate. If hon. Members require more information or explanations, the Parliamentary Secretary or I will be glad to reply later in the debate.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We are grateful to the Minister of Supply for the very full and clear explanation he has given to the Committee about these Supplementary Estimates. We on this side of the Committee do not propose to challenge these Estimates. They arise mostly from the policies and projects initiated by the previous Government, and as all those policies and projects were good, naturally their consequences are good too. I do not know what some of my colleagues feel about it, but certainly I do not want to criticise these Supplementary Estimates in a hostile way, although there are one or two questions I should like to ask in further explanation of the reasons given by the Minister for these Estimates. No doubt my colleagues also have some other questions they would like to ask.
6.30 p.m.
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the Committee the figures about the short-fall of deliveries to the Services during the present financial year. I must say that I was considerably surprised at the size of the short-fall. The right hon. Gentleman told us that we should, theoretically, have delivered to the Services goods to the equivalent of £370 million this year, instead of which these deliveries will amount to only £294 million. That is all


the more surprising as that £294 million apparently includes, in view of the answer given by the Minister to my inquiry when I interrupted him, the very substantial additional amount of clothing, textiles and machine tools ordered during the course of the year, and not anticipated when the original Estimates were put forward. So the short-fall is a substantial one, and I do not know whether it is possible, when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply, for him to tell us whether in fact this short-fall means that the programme is as much behind hand as would appear from those figures.
We always realised at the time, as I think my colleagues in the Government stated, that that programme when we launched it was a target, and we realised that it would be quite impossible to fulfil it unless all sorts of things happened—that we got the materials and machine tools as and when we wanted them. We have not got them, and it follows from that that there is bound to be some short-fall.
Does it mean—and I should like an explanation of this matter if the Minister can possibly give it—that this shortfall, substantial as it is, indicates a considerable fall-down in the programme; or does it mean that most of those goods that should have been delivered by the end of the financial year will be delivered to the Services within the next three or six months? I realise that it is impossible to give a precise answer to that question, but if the Minister can give the Committee some indication of that time-lag, it would give the Committee and the country some idea of the extent of the short-fall of the armament programme.
There were various questions that I wanted to ask the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary about these Supplementary Estimates, but his explanation has covered most of them, and therefore there are not many matters on which I need take up the time of the Committee. There are two, however. He told us that the organisation set up by myself when I was Minister of Supply for buying abroad clothing and textiles and other bits of equipment required by our armament factories—machine tools and so on—had been, or so I gathered, curtailed in view of the change in the European Payments Union position of this country, and

in view of the fact that in the textile industry of this country there is now a certain amount of spare capacity and it is more desirable to buy our clothing and textiles from them than abroad.
At the time that the organisation was launched—and it was quite a considerable one with offices in many towns in Europe—it looked as if the Services might be in a very serious situation indeed, and quite unable to buy the clothing and textiles which they urgently needed because our own industry was fully engaged and, indeed, was doing an equally important service to the country by exporting large quantities of goods, and we did not want to interfere with those exports.
Now, I gather, because the situation is changed, there has been a change of policy on the part of the Minister. I should like to know whether this organisation has merely been curtailed or closed down. Do we still maintain these offices in the various countries of Europe which started off a very important and a very good job indeed in buying the various goods we required? I think that it would be of some interest to the Committee if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us broadly from which countries and to what extent the clothing and textiles amounting to £37½ million were bought during the period that the European Purchasing Commission was in operation.
It was one of our purposes in launching this organisation to see that so far as possible the purchases should go to those countries where there was substantial unemployment, as obviously we would be doing something to stabilise and strengthen Western Europe by giving the countries where there was unemployment a useful and important job to do and would, at the same time, be strengthening our armament programme in a very marked way. If the hon. Gentleman can give us any information of the sources from which these clothing and textile purchases came I should be grateful.
There are several questions which I should like to ask about machine tools. I am glad to see that we are buying £7¼ million of machine tools above those originally anticipated to accelerate the defence programme. The provision of machine tools was always one of the greatest anxieties of my Ministry when I was in charge of it, because the progress


of the armament programme depended largely on the flow of an adequate number of machine tools from abroad to this country, and, indeed, it would have dislocated very seriously not only our armament programme but a large part of our economy if the anticipated number of machine tools had not arrived in this country and in time.
Thanks to the arrangements made by the Ministry and particularly the industrial officer we brought into the Ministry, Mr. Rawson, who did a very good job, and the civil servants who worked with him, we were enabled to make valuable arrangements with the United States administration for the delivery of machine tools to this country for the armament programmes, and we also bought substantial numbers from Europe.
At the time when the last Government came to an end, there was anxiety created by various statements made in the United States and other events which made us not quite so certain as we had been before that we were in fact going to get those machine tools when they were required and when they had been promised, and it looked as if the growing armament programme of the United States might affect our order books and might even arrest, in spite of the promise given us, particularly by Mr. C. E. Wilson when he was over here, the flow of some of the machine tools which we urgently require.
I do not know what has happened since. I think the Committee would like to know whether the Supplementary Estimate for machine tools to the value of £7¼ million indicates either that machine tools are flowing and likely to flow to this country from the United States during this quarter and next year to the extent that we anticipate and require if our armament programme is not entirely to be dislocated with great loss of resources, or whether there is in fact developing a serious short-fall in the delivery of these machine tools.
The position will no doubt be known to the Minister. If he is unable to answer this question immediately and can let us know on some subsequent occasion, I shall understand his difficulty. I should very much like to know the position, as it is, in my view, very important indeed, and has a considerable effect not only

on our armament programme but on the economy of the nation.
These are the only questions that I want to raise, but, as I said earlier, I know the details of this matter possibly better than many Members of the Committee and therefore my inquisitiveness and curiosity is partly allayed because I know so many of the facts; but there may be Members on this side not so familiar with the policies underlying the Supplementary Estimates or the facts which developed, anyhow to the end of the previous Government, who may want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary many more questions than I have put to him.

Mr. Edelman: I could not help feeling as I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), the former Minister of Supply, that he was being rather over-generous to the present Minister of Supply, and I also could not help feeling that he was being rather over-generous to himself. To the extent that he accepts responsibility for the consequences of his activities in this Estimate, I should like to draw his attention, as well as the attention of the present Minister of Supply, to some of the dangers and menaces expressed in the Estimate.
Throughout industry today—by "industry" I mean not only the trade unionists but also the employers—there is great anxiety and concern about the present direction of the Ministry of Supply. To deal with past history, I need only refer to the matter of clothing and textiles and the placing of substantial orders abroad at a time when it should not have been difficult to foresee that conditions might arise in which it would be necessary to stimulate employment in our textile industry by means of an injection such as re-armament could afford.
I want to speak more particularly of the engineering and motor industries, which are directly affected by the Estimate. The Ministry of Supply has decided that the production of motor cars should be curtailed, and the result is that skilled men are being thrown out of employment.

The Deputy-Chairman: That subject is not relevant to the Estimate.

Mr. Edelman: I suggest that it is relevant, in the sense that at the present


time the Ministry of Supply is calling for more money in order to improve its administrative staff, and I am about to suggest that the difficulty which arises today in the engineering industry is due to the inadequacy of the Minister and those associated with him in not placing the orders which should have provided work for the men who have now been displaced because of the Ministry's policy. I submit that in that sense the subject is directly relevant to the Estimate.
I want to ask the Minister whether orders have been given to engineering and motor firms which would enable them within a reasonable time to absorb the men who have been thrown out of work by his Department's policy. Whereas on the one hand, by a deliberate decision of the Government—I am not suggesting that it is a decision merely of the Ministry of Supply; it is a deliberate decision of the Government—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not see how the hon. Member can relate the general issue of unemployment, or unemployment in a particular trade, to the items in the Estimate. The general question of unemployment cannot be discussed on the Estimate.

Mr. Edelman: I am suggesting that the reason why the Ministry has not been able to deliver to the Services the goods which were covered in the original Estimates is that the Ministry has not succeeded in placing the orders for the equipment which the Services require. That is due to lack of planning on the part of the Ministry, and that is why there is such confusion throughout the engineering industry today. That is directly the reason why employers and workers are complaining about the chaos which clearly exists in the Ministry. They are complaining about the anti-planning of the Ministry of Supply—

The Deputy-Chairman: There may be many complaints, but they cannot be discussed on this Estimate. All we can discuss are the additional sums of money which are being sought in the Estimate.

Mr. Edelman: I wish to suggest to the Committee that it is directly as a result of that that we should consider very carefully whether we ought to provide more money for the Ministry's administrative service.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is clearly out of order. All that the Committee can discuss are the additional sums which are asked for in the Estimate.

Mr. Edelman: That is precisely the point to which I am applying myself. Under Item A (Salaries and Wages (Headquarters, etc.)) the sum of £750,000 is required. I am suggesting that until we have an assurance from the present Minister that the planning of the orders for the equipment required for the Services will be more efficient and more successful, the Committee should consider very carefully whether it ought to vote that sum of money. I suggest that it is relevant to consider the efficiency or inefficiency of those who have been concerned with the placing of orders for equipment for the Armed Services. The Supplementary Estimate shows clearly that the orders have not been placed.
6.45 p.m.
To illustrate whether orders have or have not been placed, there are in the Midlands—I speak of the Midlands generally and not of my own constituency —large factories which have not enough work simply because the Ministry did not place the orders to keep the factories in production. It is because the orders were not placed that on page 70 of the Supplementary Estimates we have a long list of products, such as airframes, aero-engines, armament and vehicles—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss the items on page 70. We are discussing additional sums which are required. The hon. Member must confine himself to the amounts which are asked for.

Mr. Michael Foot: . On a point of order. Is it not in order for my hon. Friend to discuss the appropriations-in-aid on page 71? They were referred to extensively by the Minister, who gave a long account to show how the expected deficiencies had arisen. My hon. Friend is referring to some of the reasons why the deficiencies occurred.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understood that the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) was referring to items on page 70. If the hon. Member is drawing attention to appropriations-in-aid, that is in order, but he cannot discuss the items on page 70.

Mr. Edelman: I apologise for not having made myself clear. I want to talk about the deficiencies which have arisen and the reasons why those deficiencies have arisen. The major reason has been that, because of his inherent hostility to planning, the Minister has not placed orders which would have provided equipment. Therefore, contracts have not been placed with major factories up and down the country which would otherwise have had the skilled men to enable them to supply the equipment, and, consequently, the equipment which the Ministry seeks and the country needs has not been made available. The consequences which have flowed from the present direction of the Ministry has been disastrous, not only to the arms programme, but also in the sense that substantial and grievous unemployment has been caused.

Mr. Jack Jones: I wish to refer to the question of machine tools. I want to offer a word or two of advice to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister has told us what we can expect. We have already spent an enormous amount of money which we can ill afford, and the Minister is now asking for a further substantial amount to buy machine tools. I do not quarrel with that, for the machine tools are necessary for our re-armament programme, but I want him to be very certain that the machine tools are used for the job they are designed to do and will not have to be scrapped.
When we are spending the taxpayer's money to this extent, it is important that the machine tools shall be available for a dual purpose, and not a single purpose. They must be available for an immediate change-over to the production of consumer goods in the Royal Ordnance factories and also in private enterprise factories. This will enable us to keep in work those who are being thrown out of work in certain circumstances.
I stress that as a result of our experience in the last war. At the end of the war we found ourselves with an enormous amount of very valuable machinery which was not of much service to the community at large for the production of civilian goods. I know that I am almost out of order, but I wanted to offer a word of advice, and neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his Parliamentary Secretary have much technical experience. They have a very able staff

behind them, but even that staff can often spend very quickly an enormous amount of the taxpayers' money by not having a long-term policy and by being rather panicky about immediate needs.
I hope the submission that I have made will be taken note of and so far as is practicable—I know the difficulties—this money will be spent in such a way that after we have done with the creation of instruments of destruction we can start once again to create things which will enable us to enjoy life.

Mr. Foot: There are two points I should like to make, and they are concerned with this item of Appropriations-in-Aid on page 71. The importance of this item was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), and if, in fact, unemployment has begun to rear its head because of the failure to place orders for which money has been provided under the Estimates, then we should have some further explanation of how this has arisen.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) called attention to the figures, which are staggering because the total which was given to the Ministry of Supply at the beginning of the financial year to provide materials was roughly £370 million and the actual sum spent is £290 million. There is a very big short-fall there, and this has been stressed all the more because I understand that one of the figures given by the Minister of Supply as an expected deficiency was, I think, £56 million. Therefore, a very large proportion of the extra amount which the Ministry were expected to use when the original Estimate was passed has not, in fact, been spent.
If it is possible, the Minister of Supply ought to give us a more detailed explanation than he has done of the exact kind of materials and provisions for Her Majesty's Forces that have not been supplied. We ought to be able to judge the different reasons which may have contributed to that state of affairs. Every hon. Member will agree that the figures are staggering in this respect, and we ought to be told what are the particular items which the Ministry of Supply expected to supply to the Army, amounting to some £19 million, which they have not been able to provide, and the same for the Admiralty and other Services.
If we could be told the different kinds of commodities and items under these various Estimates which have not been supplied, it would help us to arrive at a conclusion on the subject. As much as £56 million which was to be spent has not been spent. That sum would have made a big difference to our Budget discussions last year. If we had had that £56 million for expenditure on other things, it would have resulted in a different position from that which we discussed. I think we ought to have from the Minister an explanation which goes further than the information already given.

Mr. George Wigg: I wonder whether the Minister will confirm my view that the deficiencies shown in the appropriations in aid are not necessarily money that is left over, but arise from the fact that during the year orders have been placed which have not yet been completed. They may well be completed during the coming year. I make that point because during the coming weeks, when we are discussing the re-armament programme, it will be very important for us to get clear in our minds the difficulties of fitting into the financial year a programme of production which involves placing such orders as these and also involves an act of faith about the completion of those orders. It seems to me that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding on this particular point, and it would help if the Minister cleared it up.
I do not want to take up very much of the Committee's time, but I want to turn now to one specific item which deals with clothing and textiles. I do not apologise for detaining the Committee on this point, because my constituency is concerned with the production of clothing. The industries engaged in that trade have run into difficult times during the last few months, and there is a tendency for unemployment and under-production to ensue. As I understand it, orders for clothing were placed abroad last year when it was not possible for those orders to be executed in this country within the specified time, because our productive capacity was being used to its maximum. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was forced to go outside this country if

we were to get this clothing within the period in which it was wanted.
The situation has changed now and I want to know whether the Minister is watching this problem very closely. I am quite sure that he is aware of the difficulty, and I hope he is sufficiently interested in it to have the interests of Dudley in mind. In my constituency there are highly competent workmen who could be absorbed in this trade if there were further orders. A sum of £37½ million is to be spent, and it may be that of the £19¾ million for clothing a little could be spent in Dudley. I know that I am getting out of order, and I shall not pursue that matter further. I am not going to trespass on the generosity or the time of the Committee, and if the Minister can give me an assurance that the clothing interests of Dudley are being looked after, I shall be happy, as will the Fighting Services, because they can be quite sure that they will get high-class material at very reasonable prices.

Mr. Shurmer: I do not know whether I shall be out of order in saying what I propose to say, but in the City of Birmingham we have a thousand and one trades, and the delay in placing orders among the small factories—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afaid that the hon. Member is getting beyond the scope of this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Shurmer: I was dealing with the question of the delay in placing these orders.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is out of order on this Supplementary Estimate. Mr. Low.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I shall do my best to answer the questions that have been raised from all parts of the Committee, but in answering some of the issues put from behind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) I shall have to take into account the fairly sharp criticism of his administration rather than of the administration of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.
The first point made was on the important matter of what exactly this shortfall means. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) put the point in a way which


I found congenial to myself, as it is difficult to understand. The short-fall is taking into account the fact that we are dealing with annual Estimates, and, of course, it is right to say that orders have been placed for all this equipment and a great deal more, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. That point I shall come to in a moment. What we mean by short-fall is a lag or delay in delivery.
In the course of his very clear statement my right hon. Friend was asked by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall about the amount of clothing that was taken into account in the receipts and estimates shown in the Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman will notice that the full figure of £38 million in this Supplementary Estimate refers to both clothing and textiles. He would not, I am sure, expect all of that to be delivered to the Services. All the clothing that was for delivery to the Services is taken into account in the receipts shown in item Z. Is that clear to the right hon. Gentleman?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might clarify it a bit more. Does he mean that we have spent more in getting raw materials, cloth for example, and that it has not all been delivered to the services because it has not all been made up? If that is so, is it possible to divide the £37½ million, which is so colossal? Perhaps we could be told that £30 million of it is material that has been purchased and is likely to be made up and delivered in clothing of such a condition as the Services want it during the next six months. Unless we have some such division of the figure, it is difficult to understand the significance of the £37½ million.

Mr. Low: I was just going to give the division. It is that £15 million of the increased expenditure on clothing is covered by the deliveries of clothing to the Services in this current year and is included in the figure of £294 million which my right hon. Friend has mentioned. The balance of the Supplementary Estimate for clothing and textiles is not due for delivery this year and is not therefore included in the £294 million. That should make the position exactly clear.
I come to the point taken by the hon. Member for Coventry. North (Mr. Edelman) and the hon. Member for Devon-

port (Mr. Foot), in which they charged the Ministry of Supply with not having placed enough orders and therefore with being responsible for unemployment. I do not think that it needs me to remind the Committee that that charge, if it were really meant to be taken fully seriously, is against the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. Perhaps I can clear up the position by stating that we have placed orders already to the approximate value of £1,200 million Out of £1,600 million of requisitions to be received under the three years' programme of £4,700 million. I do not think it can be said that there is any lag in the placing of orders.

Mr. Edelman: My charge is certainly not against my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). My charge is against the present Government. It is that today the two programmes, the civilian and the armament programmes, are out of phase. The civilian programme, by the decision of the present Government, is being tapered off at too sharp a speed, whereas the armament programme has not been entered into upon a sufficiently large scale. The result is that men are being thrown out of work on the civil side and are not being taken on upon the armament side at all.

Mr. Low: I should be out of order if I replied to that interruption and if I referred to anything which is not going to be delivered to the Services this year. We have to pay regard to the rules of order. I must return to the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Wigg: The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned £1,200 million for orders already placed. Would he be kind enough to tell us how much of that has been placed by the present Government?

Mr. Low: I cannot answer that question directly, but it is quite a substantial figure.
I now pass to machine tools, points about which were made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). I am glad that he paid a tribute to Mr. Rawson. My right hon. Friend and I would like to join in it. We recognise as much as he does that so much depends upon the arrival of these machine tools from abroad, and particularly from the


United States. The hon. Member for Rotherham put the point that we should try to see that of the machine tools that we have to pay for through these Estimates and others, as few as possible are of the specialist type and as many as possible are of a type useful for normal industrial production.
I note that point, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that some parts of armament production depend upon specialist tools and that the availability of specialist tools governs both the speed and the economic manufacture of the things that have to be produced.

Mr. Jack Jones: I said I realised there was difficulty about specialist tools but that there was an enormous amount of capital expenditure on tools which could have been used in other ways.

Mr. Low: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The only other point concerns clothing. The right hon. Gentleman asked me in particular about the European Purchasing Commission. The future of that body is now under consideration. Its organisation is being curtailed. So far we have placed orders for clothing and bought clothing and textiles from the following countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Holland and Italy, and a small quantity from Switzerland. That is the position about clothing. I do not think I should be in order if I widened my reply about the European Purchasing Commission. I have tried to answer the main points put to the Committee and I hope the Committee will now feel able to accept this Vote.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can deal with the points I made and the question which I asked him and which he has not touched upon at all. When he talked about the short-fall, I suggested that the figure of the short-fall did not mean very much unless it were accompanied by some sort of estimate of the length of time of the short-fall. Is £75 million a short-fall which will last for a year or 18 months, or one which it is hoped will be overcome within three or six months. On the answer to that question really depends our estimate of the extent to which the original re-armament programme is falling down.

Mr. Low: Production under the programme is going on all the time. As I explained to the Committee, the short-fall is really a delay in delivery under that programme but there is no immediate prospect that we shall catch up the time that we have lost. Meanwhile production goes ahead.

Mr. Strauss: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us an average figure? I know it cannot be done exactly but is it possible to do it even broadly?

Mr. Low: I have not even tried to do it because the figure would be very misleading.

Mr. Wigg: The Parliamentary Secretary has not replied to me about clothing. He was rather nice-minded and punctilious about being in order and I must follow his excellent example. I hope that the Committee are aware of the difficulties in the clothing trade and that they will bear the needs of the various areas in mind.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, will he bear another point in mind? At the moment the development areas are foreseeing the danger of a trade recession. There is already substantial unemployment in some parts of the development areas. In these areas there are clothing factories which are often run by large enterprises. If there is any contraction of trade in the clothing industry, those factories may well be closed because, from a purely commercial and business point of view—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order.

Mr. Willey: The point I am pursuing is that the Minister is asking for some extra money with which to buy clothing for the Forces. I was asking a question to make sure that he will spend it in the best possible way.

Mr. Low: Perhaps I should clear up that last point. We are asking for extra money to pay for clothing that is being produced and will be delivered. That is why I was under some difficulty in answering the point put by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). However, I can give him the assurance that we are paying the closest attention to the placing of clothing contracts, and in the course of his speech at the beginning of this short debate, my right hon. Friend made clear our policy in this respect.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply for the supply of munitions, aircraft, common-user and other articles and atomic energy and for research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto; for administrative services in connection with the iron and steel, non-ferrous and light metals and engineering industries; for the operation of the Royal Ordnance Factories and official car services; and for miscellaneous supplies and services.

CLASS IX. VOTE 2

Ministry of Supply (Trading Services and Assistance to Industry)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,788,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Supply on trading services, scrap metal recovery and assistance to industry.

Mr. Sandys: Since this is a much smaller Supplementary Estimate, and since it covers a wide variety of subjects, I do not propose, as I did on the previous Vote, to speak at the beginning. I shall be only too glad, however, to give any information or explanations which may be asked for by hon. Members which may be asked for during the discussion.

Mr. Edelman: Arising out of this Estimate and with reference to A.1 on page 73, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the additional provision required for Import Duty is concerned in any way with the recent purchase of steel from America by the Prime Minister. It seems to me that if that is the case this provision is inadequate, because—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is making a suggestion that the sum should be increased, and that would be out of order.

Mr. Edelman: In that case, may I ask for information? May I ask whether this amount which is being made available is for steel which will be coming forward from the United States? There has for a long time been a substantial quantity of sheet steel outstanding

from the United States. Only last year there was a plea of force majeure and, on the strength of that plea, deliveries of sheet steel which should have been made were not made. Therefore the simple question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman is whether this provision for Import Duty covers those outstanding contracts and, if it does not, what action has the right hon. Gentleman taken to obtain the sheet steel which is so necessary for the industry?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: May I ask three questions for the purposes of information? I refer first to A.1—Iron and Steel—on page 73, where there is the additional provision to which the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), has just referred. There is a subtraction for additional net receipts on production at agency factories amounting to £220,000. Can we have some explanation of these agency factories? I understand that during the war and for some time afterwards the Ministry purchased some undertakings, particularly up at Barrow and other places. Does this subtraction cover that form of agency factory? If it does, it would be interesting to know how we get the net receipts—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not now discussing expenditure, is he?

Mr. Roberts: No, I want to find out about the net receipts on production.

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be out of order to discuss receipts.

Mr. Roberts: But the Supplementary Estimate says "Less—Additional Net receipts" and there is a figure of £220,000.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member can discuss the additional sum asked for, which is £315,000. The sum of £220,000 is for receipts, and it would be out of order to discuss that sum.

Mr. Roberts: I should like assistance on this. We have a figure of £535,000, which is the money required to be set off against Import Duty and which we are asked to approve. If there had not been a set-off against that, we should be asked to approve £535,000, but that has been reduced by £220,000, which is the result of operations in agency factories.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not asked to discuss the sum of £535,000. The sum that can be discussed is the additional sum required. The Committee is only asked to vote the additional sum of £315,000.

Mr. Roberts: Again I appreciate that, but surely I am allowed-to ask how that £315,000 is made up? Apparently it is made up of one sum for Import Duty from which a subtraction is made. Obviously the amount of £315,000 might be greater or less as a result of the agency factories that have been operating throughout the area. I submit that I am in order on this.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, the sum of £315,000 may have been anything, but the actual figure asked for is £315,000 and the hon. Member must direct his observations to the additional sum asked for, which is £315,000.

Mr. Roberts: I will try to do so by asking whether the sum, in fact, could not be reduced further by a greater deduction of receipts on production at agency factories. The point I am trying to make is that I feel we should know how this £315,000 is arrived at by reason of the deduction. There is an obvious implication that if the receipts from these agency factories had been higher, then the sum we are asked to approve would be less because the amount of the deduction would depend on the amount of the receipts obtained by the agency factories. I do not want to go any further than that and, if that is improper, I shall not pursue it any further. It appears to me, however, that assuming the agency factories had made no money whatever, we should have been asked to provide £315,000.

Mr. Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member would be perfectly in Order in discussing that the £315,000 asked for is too much, but he cannot direct his remarks to the sum which has been saved.

Mr. Roberts: But I cannot say it is too much until I get the answer to the question I am asking.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must not conduct out-of-order fishing inquiries.

Mr. Roberts: If the amount of money coming from the agency factories was higher as a result of putting up the price of the production at these factories, then the amount which we should have to provide would be less. That is the only point that I am making, and I hope, if I may leave it at that, that it will be in order for a reply to be given to that question.

Mr. Jack Jones: Perhaps I may help the hon. Member. The answer is quite simple. For war purposes the Government had to continue to keep in being obsolete, inefficient high production plants which have been kept on since, and we have had to subsidise them.

Mr. Roberts: The amount of money obtained from the production at these inefficient factories results in the £220,000 which is the subtraction figure to which I am referring.

Mr. Jones: They were improved under Socialism.

Mr. Roberts: The second question, which I hope I shall be able to raise more easily, is that of assistance to industry. This is more or less a straightforward provision of £894,000, which is shown on page 73 as being "Additional provision required for iron and steel (mainly import duty on semi-finished steel and pig iron)."
I should like to ask whether any of this refers to pig iron and semifinished steel coming from Spain. In other words, is the additional iron and steel to which this item refers the result of increased production from Spain, or does it come from the Dominions? I should like to draw the Minister's attention to work which is now going on in Africa and Newfoundland in the production of pig iron, and I should like to know whether any of this additional production is coming from Dominion sources or from the Continent.
My third point relates to iron and steel scrap recovery. This is the more important of the three items, I suggest. This relates to the question of recovery of scrap from surplus ships. The way in which it is set out is rather difficult to follow, in that in D (3) we find the words "Additional provision required for breakdown of Government surplus ships…"
Does that mean it is merely the increased cost of demolition, or does it mean that more ships have been broken up? If it is the latter, one would have thought there would have been a resulting receipt from the scrap which was sold.
That brings me to the question whether the Minister can say—again I do not want to go too far into the future in this —that it is possible to look forward to increased scrap supplies from Government surplus ships, or whether the Minister thinks that at the moment we have got about the greatest amount that we can get. The need for scrap is very great. We find that the sum which is required to be spent is £237,000 but there seems to be no set-off for the scrap iron which is thereby produced. If, of course, it is merely a matter of increased charges I think one would like to know that, and how they arise.
Those are my three main points—the first one, which the Minister may find some difficulty in answering and keeping in order, relating to the agency factories; the second one dealing with assistance to industry and the importation of pig iron and semi-finished steel, and thirdly the question of scrap from ships.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) asked me a very simple question, which was whether the additional steel for which there will be extra charges in respect of Import Duty and other costs which are provided for under this Supplementary Estimate, included any of the additional steel which has resulted from the recent negotiations in Washington by the Prime Minister. The answer is "No." Additional steel over and above what was already estimated for will not be coming in until after the end of the financial year. Therefore, these Supplementary Estimates do not relate to the steel obtained as a result of those negotiations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) asked me three questions. The first related to agency factories, and it was ruled out of order by the Chair. Therefore, I shall not attempt to reply to it in this debate, but I will gladly send the information to my hon. Friend.
The second point raised by my hon. Friend was whether any additional pig iron imported under Sub-head B came from Spain. It is very hard to answer that question, because these Supplementary Estimates provide for an additional quantity of imports of raw materials and semi-finished steel, and it is hard to say which particular bit of pig iron we are dealing with—that is to say, whether the pig iron from Spain was already provided for under the original Estimate, or whether it is provided for under the Supplementary Estimate. But I can assure my hon. Friend that we are importing materials from Spain and from North Africa, which he also mentioned.
My hon. Friend went on to ask for son-le further explanation of the additional expenditure under Sub-head D, which relates to iron and steel scrap recovery. This arises from expenditure on scrap recovered from Germany and also from the increased transport charges on iron and steel scrap resulting from the breaking up of surplus Government ships. It arises also from the increased costs of ship-breaking. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything we can to lay our hands on every possible supply of scrap, including, of course, any ships which are available for breaking up.

Mr. Roberts: Do I understand that this extra money is a charge on labour and expense involved in getting the scrap, or have we broken up more ships than was estimated in the first place?

Mr. Sandys: This arises from additional costs. My hon. Friend asked me also why there was not a saving resulting from the money obtained through the sales of the scrap recovered. The answer is simple. It is that this money, like so many of these payments, goes direct into the Treasury and does not pass through the accounts of the Ministry of Supply. I think I have answered all the points which have been raised.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,788,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Supply on trading services, scrap metal recovery and assistance to industry.

CLASS IX. VOTE 3

Ministry of Food

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,900,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; and sundry other services, including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. F. Willey: This Supplementary Estimate does not give a complete or comprehensive indication of the activities of the Ministry of Food. I make no complaint about that. The Ministry is a trading Department and this is a cash statement. I wish to look beyond the Supplementary Estimate to see the purpose of the additional sum required.
One would have expected that if a trading Department was coming to the House asking for extra moneys in a Supplementary Estimate, that fact would indicate that the Department had purchased more commodities than it had anticipated, or alternatively that what it had purchased had cost more. If we look at the position this clearly is not so. The rations for the current year have been less than those for the previous year and I think that the ration level upon which the assumptions were made for the original Estimates must have been higher than the actual present ration levels.
If we look at Sub-head H "Trading Services (Net)" we find this impression is borne out because the revised Estimate for purchase, freight and storage is now £1,697,800,000 against the original estimate of £1,838,000,000. In other words, we have bought not more but rather less —£140 million less—compared with the foodstuffs which it was anticipated we should buy when the original Estimate was presented.
So if we try to find out why an additional sum is required we have to look to the receipts in this new Supplementary Estimate. It is now anticipated that receipts from sales, that is sales to the housewife, will be £1,280,600,000, which is also less than the original Estimate, which was £1,450,300,000. That is the reason why the Minister has to come to the Committee and ask for additional sums—because he is getting from sales

of foodstuffs £169 million less than it was anticipated he would obtain when the original Estimates were presented.
In short, the position is not that the Minister has purchased more food than was originally estimated, not that he has spent more money on the food he has purchased: the fact that he is now obliged to come to the Committee is that he has sold less of the food which he has obtained. This Supplementary Estimate is necessary because the Minister has obtained less money by acting as a shopkeeper and selling the goods to the housewife, who needs them.
After all that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's colleagues have said in the past, I should have thought that that was quite intolerable. I used to be accused from these benches, when I sat where the Minister is at present temporarily sitting, of being dictated to by the Treasury. This is surely dictatorship by the Treasury with a vengeance.
What I have said to explain this request for additional moneys is borne out if we look at the reconciliation statement—and I congratulate the Minister on following the precedent my right hon. Friend set in affording some additional information by this reconciliation statement. If we look at it we find that it is to some extent an explanation of Subhead H. We find the net increase in stocks is £28,800,000. That is to say that at the end of the year we shall have £28,800,000 worth of food more than when we started.
The interesting thing about this is that in the original Estimate we anticipated that the net increase of stocks would be £14,100,000. Stock levels are related ration levels. If there are higher ration levels to sustain them, it might be advisable to carry bigger stocks; in any case the atmosphere is one in which it is more tolerable to carry bigger stocks. Today we have the position in which the ration level is in several cases less than in the previous year and less than the assumptions on which the Estimates were originally based. Nevertheless the Minister is proposing doubling the stocks which we had in mind when the original Estimates were laid before the House.
That demands an explanation. When we are dealing with foodstuffs regard has to be paid to what the housewife would desire. Certainly my right hon. Friend


felt that the whole time. It is for the Minister to persuade the housewife, through this House, that today these stocks should be increased to twice the amount which we envisaged was necessary when we were contemplating a higher ration level and when the atmosphere was more hopeful than it is today.
All this has to be considered against the position of the strategic stockpiles. It would not be in order to discuss a later Vote but it is relevant to the present argument to point out that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will this evening ask for the increase of the strategic stockpiles by purchases amounting to £8,294,000. That means that in this current financial year the Minister is increasing our food stocks by some £23 million over and above the £72,500,000 of strategic stockpiles which we have built up according to our programme in the present year.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that may not necessarily mean any increase in the amounts of food, but that it may be, in many cases, a reflection of increased prices?

Mr. Willey: I shall come to that point. The point I was putting was that we are increasing our trading account stocks by more than was envisaged when the original Estimates were made, and we are increasing the strategic stockpile. Notwithstanding that, we have made this substantial and appreciable increase in our food stocks during the current financial year.
It appears to me that all this shows that I was absolutely right when I challenged the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on his attitude to the question of Christmas bonuses. He created the impression then —and this will give him an opportunity to correct it—that he was being driven to what seemed to us to be niggardly action because of the stock position. He repeatedly conveyed the impression in the country that it was because of the state of the larder that he had to do many things which were unpleasant to the housewife. But these Supplementary Estimates show that that is not so. They show that we are at present in a strong position regarding stocks.
This is relevant to the present request for more money. This increased stock-

piling has to be considered against the strategic stockpile that we are building up. But I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he intended to raid that stockpile. If we read carefully the Chancellor's statement, it is clear that he intends very substantially to raid that stockpile. Surely, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that, on the face of it, all this seems most fantastic.
We are building up stocks which the Chancellor, who clearly controls the Minister of Food notwithstanding the support he is supposed to have got through the co-ordinating Minister, says that he intends to raid. The Minister says, "I am going to increase the stockpile and at the same time, to show how energetic and virile I am, I am going to increase our trading stockpile to figures we have not previously attained." The first thing the Minister must do is to satisfy the housewife that he is doing what she would want him to do, certainly as far as the increase in our stocks on the trading side is concerned.
I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be frank with the Committee. All this creates the suspicion that he has got one of two alternatives —or both—in mind. The first, which may surprise some of my hon. Friends, is that he may well have in mind the de-rationing of some of these commodities which are in short supply. If he has that in mind, he must build up a sufficient stockpile to meet the first onrush. But if he does that, he is safe, according to his own lights, because then the increased price will dictate lower consumption.
I should like him to be frank and to say that, at any rate, behind this action of the Ministry there is no intention to build up stocks which might be sufficient to allow de-rationing in circumstances where de-rationing would be most antisocial and most unfair to the people. That is one possible explanation.
Another possibility is that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is again acting in a niggardly way. He is acting as a shopkeeper knowing what is to happen and waiting to sell these foodstuffs at a higher price. If there are stocks which are sold now with subsidies at the present rate, that will cost the Treasury more money and they will not like it. But if,


as has been indicated in so many places, it is the policy of the Government radically to reduce food subsidies not-withstanding what was said on other occasions by the co-ordinating Minister, that is another matter.
A remarkable fact about the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary has occurred to me. I say this without offence. I tried to work out some rational reason for bringing them together in the positions they now occupy.

Mr. Wigg: Politics.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Willey: It is more than politics. Neither of them are Members of the Prime Minister's party. They are not committed by "Britain Strong and Free." They did not subscribe to it. Again, this is an occasion perhaps for them to say what they committed themselves to on the question of subsidies during the Election. If there is to be a radical change of food subsidy policy, then it is in the interests of the shopkeeper to keep goods in the back of the shop and not to sell them until the prices go up. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will go at any rate some way towards allaying those two fears this evening.
There are one or two other matters which are a little obscure. The reconciliation statement shows that the amounts now required for the fertiliser subsidy have increased substantially.

Mr. F. Harris: Higher prices.

Mr. Willey: I am asking the Minister for an explanation. It is more than an increase. There is a note at the bottom of the page explaining that it includes payments not maturing until 1952–53. Why on such a reconciliation statement should we include payments which are not maturing until 1952–53? We are entitled to some explanation. This reconciliation statement might be open to the interpretation that it is rather a gloss, being a straining after making the subsidy appear as though it were running at £410 million when in fact it may be rather below. I mention that so that the question might be cleared up.
Another point which does not arise directly, though it is surprising and calls

for an explanation, is that in the reconciliation statement we have the note:
Improvement of debtor/creditor position, etc. … £21,600,000.
In the original Estimate the item was:
Variations in debtors and creditors
and it amounted to £1,400,000. That point requires some explanation. I should like to know what "etc." means. It was not there in the original Estimate. Secondly, what is the explanation of this substantial increase compared with the figure shown in the original Estimate?
I should like the Minister generally to make it clear that there has been no resort to any ingenious arithmetic to bolster up the figure of £410 million. I should like him to assure the Committee that we are in fact—as will be revealed later when we get the accounts—running at the £410 million subsidy level. If we are doing that, we must still pay regard to the fact that the Minister was late in introducing certain of his price increases, because those increases will run for the whole of the next financial year.
By the stratagem of delay in bringing them into effect, in short by giving himself a short space of time to recover the moneys required, he was able to lift the prices much higher than he would have been obliged to increase them if he had taken action at an earlier date. That, again, affects the subsidy position as it will appear next year, and it is a matter which does not allay my suspicions about the policy of the right hon. Gentleman on subsidies.
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity of apologising to the House for misleading us when we discussed the Christmas bonuses, that he will say that the stock position is, as we said from these benches, favourable, and that he will be quite explicit and say that behind the action which is revealed by the Supplementary Estimates, there is no intention of drastically attacking the food subsidies when we reach the next financial year.

Mr. F. Harris: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr F Willey) until only a few months ago had a peculiarly easy position of knowing the answers to many of the points he has levelled at the Minister today. I was critical of the two previous Governments on certain matters of food expenses, and I still want to ask several points of detail, because I feel that many of these Supplementary


Estimates are completely wasted information when the figures can be quoted only in monetary values.
We are living in such a topsy-turvy world that many of the monetary values detailed in the Estimates give no true indication of what can possibly be happening in regard to the stocks and the expenditure involved. It would be of inestimable value if the monetary values could have been accompanied by details of tonnages. Had that been done, we should have got a true indication of whether the statements just made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, have any bearing on the situation.
The hon. Member asked, for instance, whether there could be an increase in rations or whether bonuses could have been issued at Christmas. The answer to that is closely related to the question whether the monetary values shown in the Estimates represent any real increase in the quantity of stocks. One has to go even further and decide whether, later on, there will be an availability of supplies to enable the rations to be maintained.

Mr. Wigg: Surely the hon. Member is not raising that point. Only on 26th October we were assured that as soon as a Conservative Administration came back, there would be no shortages of any kind.

Mr. Harris: That is an entirely false statement.

Mr. Wigg: Tell it to Woolton.

Mr. Harris: I shall tell it to nobody. I simply say quite definitely that that is a false statement.

Mr. Wigg: Where are the traders who are out in the world?

Mr. Harris: Looking at the details of the various items, one wonders seriously whether estimates by the Civil Service are of much value at all, because the discrepancies which appear eventually are so disturbingly different that one asks whether there is much value ever in seeing estimates of any kind.
The animal feedingstuffs figure is up by some £4 million. That is a good thing, but one wonders how much of that figure represents the price increases which have taken place. Regarding the bacon and ham figures, which are down by some £14 million, I am not at all

satisfied of the need to have as low a figure as £40 million as against the original Estimate of £54 million.
It would be a pity if we were to miss opportunities of living up to the Estimates if supplies were available. I know that in East Africa, for instance, plenty of additional supplies of bacon have been available, and I should like my right hon. and gallant Friend's assurance that every advantage has been taken by the Ministry of obtaining all the supplies that can be available. In some respects, I am extremely doubtful.
The same remarks can be applied to eggs and egg products, which are down by the alarming figure of some £12 million. The immediate reaction after looking at the figures is to ask whether we are buying all the supplies of which we could take advantage. In many respects, we could be purchasing more supplies, particularly from the Commonwealth and Colonies, than are detailed in the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Wigg: Is the hon. Member advocating an extension of bulk purchase, or is he now referring to Lord Woolton's private traders scouring the earth for these supplies?

Mr. Harris: We are quite used to the hon. Member's varied interventions. Now he is trying hard to score some sort of point. My concern is that in certain parts of the Commonwealth and Empire we could be taking greater advantage of supplies that are available. I have instanced bacon and ham, about which I am satisfied from personal knowledge that more purchasing could have been undertaken when the previous Government were in power; and more advantage could be taken of these supplies at present.
The Supplementary Estimate of £25,900,000 which we are asked to vote could, I feel, have been lessened a little by further reductions in the item for salaries, which is put at £200,000. There could be much more simplification of method inside the Ministry to allow greater savings to be obtained. A certain amount of joining up of Departments and simplification generally would enable this to be done. I appeal to my right hon. and gallant Friend to satisfy himself that we are taking the fullest possible advantage of economy inside the


structure of the Ministry in order to keep down costs as much as possible.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I do not propose to detain the Committee very long, or even to make a speech, because I cannot make up my mind about Sub-head H. I should like the Minister to enlighten me on two points. In the separate commodities included under Sub-head H is an item of "Milk, including Milk Welfare Schemes," the original Estimate for which was £105 million and the revised Estimate £88,500,000. I am quite unable to say whether this reduction means that we are going to extend the welfare schemes and, therefore, to give more free commodities, or whether the Government are going to abolish or to restrict them.
In regard to tea, a very important item as far as housewives are concerned, I notice that in the original Estimate there was an anticipated credit of £4,200,000 and that in the revised Estimate there is an obvious anticipated deficit of £700,000. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can throw some light on these two points.

8.0 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): I shall try to deal with the points which have been raised by hon. Members. First I should like to say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey). He said a good many things which, if I may say so, were a long way from the subject of this Estimate. He asked some very pertinent questions and seemed to imply through most of his speech that there was a very sinister motive behind the Estimate. I can assure him that that is not the case.
For example, the hon. Member wanted to know the explanation for doubling the rate of stocking and seemed rather to suggest that we had all sorts of ideas of derationing things in short supply and asked me to be quite frank as to the reason for so doing. I ask the hon. Member to be quite frank. This doubling of stock was done entirely during the period of the late Government; so he may have a better idea than I have of the reasons.

Mr. Willey: Why did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not follow the

assumptions made by the previous Administration, that there would be, for instance, a Christmas bonus?

Major Lloyd George: On the first point I thought the hon. Member might enlighten us. I will now go into some of the details of what the increases were. If the hon. Member will look at the details on page 75, he will find that the biggest increases were for oils and fats and for meat and livestock. The reason for the big increase in meat and livestock was, firstly, the increased cost of procurement and, secondly, a fairly substantial loss on the sale of hides, which again had nothing to do with us.

Mr. Willey: I said that of course it is difficult to know what is behind the Estimate, and I gave my reasons for drawing certain deductions from the Estimate. It is no good the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referring to meat and livestock when I referred to a specific figure on stocks in the reconciliation statement. Is he telling us that at present we are carrying exceptional stocks of meat? If so, it is difficult to reconcile that statement with the action he has recently taken about the ration.

Major Lloyd George: I did not suggest anything of the sort, and naturally I am not going to tell the hon. Member what the stocks are. His whole argument was that the increase in the procurement or in the amount spent indicated that we had bought enormous stocks and were holding them back for some sinister motive. I make two points in reply. The first is that as this expenditure was largely incurred during the time of his Government, perhaps he could give a better explanation. I am giving one explanation, that under Sub-head H the biggest increase is for oils and fats and is due to the increasing of stock which occurred during the time of the late Government. The other increase is in meat and livestock, which is a substantial increase of about £14 million per annum.
The explanation is that there was a loss of a very substantial nature on the sale of hides and skins and there has been an increase in procurement costs. That is the explanation of the whole of that increase. I have explained that on those two biggest items of increase there is no sinister motive at all. The hon. Member asked about the fertiliser subsidy—

Mr. Willey: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that matter, would he deal with my main point, that when we compare these Supplementary Estimates with the original Estimates and trace how the figure of £29,500,000 is made up—which is adjusted by savings—it is quite clear that the figure is accounted for not by increased purchases by his Department but by reduced sales?

Major Lloyd George: On certain commodities it is obvious that that must be so.

Mr. Willey: I am sorry, but we want to get this clear. I am not talking of certain commodities, but of the aggregate. We have to take the aggregate sales and aggregate receipts. When we take the aggregate sales we find they are less than those of the original Estimate. The aggregate receipts are also less, but the difference in the second place is greater than it is in the first, and that gives rise to the need for extra moneys and for an explanation.

Major Lloyd George: I have pointed out to the hon. Member what some of the increased items are, and they do not represent any increased stock.
I now come to the point about milk which was raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). The reason for the great drop in milk is that the price was increased and the actual amount of milk available, owing to the short-fall particularly in the first five months of last year, made the sales very much less. That of course has no effect whatever on the welfare schemes, because they are not affected by price fixing. The reason for the figure is that there was a rise of 1d. and at one time there was a very heavy short-fall, especially in the first five months of the year.

Mrs. Mann: Does not that rather indicate that that 1d. increase in milk was not justified?

Major Lloyd George: No, because it did not have any effect on actual consumption. I am talking of the period before. I think it was raised twice last year, but in the period to which I am referring there was a definite shortage, in the first five months compared with those of the year before. That was due to a very bad winter, heavy rain and bad pasture. That affects this figure in addition

to the increase in cost of a 1d. and explains almost completely the difference in the figure.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman clear up this matter? I want the point clear in my mind. As I understand it, the purchases are down and the sales are down, but the difference is greater by the amount of the Estimate. What we want is an explanation of the declining sales.

Mr. F. Harris: Before replying to that question, would my right hon. and gallant Friend explain this? I do not understand how he means that the increase in the price of milk helps his point. Surely it is the other way round? The increase in the price of milk worsens the difference.

Major Lloyd George: No. It makes our liability less. It is obvious that if we increase the price to the consumer it decreases the liability of the Ministry. The real shortage was due to perfectly natural causes in the first five months of last year. There was a comparatively heavy reduction in the first five months and that was the real cause of the shrinking of the product.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now talking about one specific item.

Major Lloyd George: I am talking about milk. I thought that was the point I was answering.

Mr. Foot: Surely, the main point put by my hon. Friend is confirmed by the figure in the reconciliation statement about the net increase in stocks, which is £28 million. Therefore, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is attempting to dispose of the point raised by my hon. Friend, should he not deal with that figure as well and explain the meaning of the statement about the net increase of stocks of £28 million? That covers all commodities.

Mr. Willey: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman replies, may I put an assumption to him, because he said we were carrying some of these stocks at the time of the last Government? Supposing we were carrying some of these stocks for the purpose of giving a Christmas bonus and that bonus was not in fact made, would not the stock position be greater than estimated at the time of the original Estimate?

Major Lloyd George: I tried to explain that these vast stocks were mostly acquired up to November last year. Not only do they include things like oils and fats and certain animal feedingstuffs in order to meet the pool requirements, but the Committee must also remember that there are increased prices. It does not necessarily mean a greater quantity. So far as meat is concerned, procurement prices are up. That does not mean that there are more stocks, but when it comes to oils and fats there was a definite increase, and that explains the whole of this position.
The hon. Gentleman went on to ask me about another statement in the reconciliation statement, which was the
Improvement of debtor/creditor position, etc.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman really is not clearing up this point to my satisfaction. My hon. Friend has made it clear that there is a decline in sales. Will the Minister explain it? What he apparently cannot get over is the fact that there is a fall in both purchases and sales, but that the net result is that the decrease is greater by the amount of the Estimates.

Major Lloyd George: I thought I had made myself perfectly clear.

Mr. Wigg: Well, nobody here understands it.

Major Lloyd George: It is not my fault; I am doing my best. What I am saying is that these increased figures do not necessarily mean increased stocks. In some cases there are increased prices for lesser quantities. For instance, with regard to meat the cost of procurement and the cost of distribution are up. I could go through them in detail. There are many things where the costs are up which is reflected in this figure.

Mr. Wigg: Am I right in assuming that the sum of £28.8 million is wholly reflected in increases in value and not in quantity?

Major Lloyd George: Speaking generally, we find that the price is reflected in most of the costs and is not reflected in increased stocks. That is what I want to make perfectly plain.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: I am trying to follow the Minister's statement, but I am in exactly the same difficulty as other hon. Members. Let us take the case of milk. The Minister said a moment ago that (a) the price of milk had gone up and that that accounted for a certain amount of increase, and (b) that there had been a shortage in the supply which presumably meant less milk. I should have thought that to some extent that should have cancelled the increase in the price. If that is not the case I hope the Minister will explain it to us.

Major Lloyd George: If less milk is sold then, obviously, the liability of the Ministry is less. With regard to stocks I repeat that, apart from meat, butter and cheese and tea were not so good. That only reinforces the point I am making, that just because the figures are higher it does not necessarily mean that there are larger stocks.

Mr. Wigg: Will the Minister deal with meat? Is the stock of meat higher?

Major Lloyd George: Slightly, but that is not saying a great deal.
With regard to the item:
Improvement of debtor/creditor position, etc.
none of this is very simple to explain. It includes many things, the liability for which was incurred in the previous year. There is, for instance, a payment under the meat agreement with Argentina on a reciprocal arrangement. There is some increase in the price review. The big money, this £13 million or so, does not affect the ceiling for the subsidy at all.

Mr. Willey: May I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for that explanation, although I am still not satisfied about his previous explanation. However, I do not think we can pursue that matter further. As I say, I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for this last explanation. I raised the point because of the considerable increase on the previous Estimate. I thought it was a matter on which we should have an explanation.

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in raising it.
Another point was raised by one of my hon. Friends with regard to the discrepancy. When one looks at the figure


of £1,697,800,000, I do not think that £29,500,000 is a very serious discrepancy. I think it is something like 1½ per cent., although I have not worked it out. The fertiliser subsidy which was incurred this year will not be paid until next year.
With regard to the point about tea which was raised by the hon. Lady opposite, that was explained by the fact that when tea was handed over to the tea market last year we had stocks of tea at the Ministry. The reduction on the sale of the stocks to the trade is the explanation. My hon. Friend asked whether we were doing everything we could to get supplies of food especially from members of the Commonwealth. We have not been in very long, but I can assume my hon. Friend that in that fairly short period two agreements have been made which we hope will greatly influence the production by members of the Commonwealth of things that we need.
The other point I would make is that the fact that the agreement has been made will not in any way prevent the trade taking over when the time comes and it can be done, the purchase of sugar and meat. That is explicit in the agreement. I think I have covered all the points that have been made. I admit that one or two are extremely complicated, but I have endeavoured to make them as clear as I possibly can, and I hope that the Committee will now agree to the Estimate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,900,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; and sundry other services, including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

CLASS IX. VOTE 13

Ministry of Food (Strategic Reserves)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,240,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenses of the Ministry of Food in connection with the procurement and maintenance of strategic reserves.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. F. Willey: May I pursue more properly on this Vote the point I raised on the earlier Vote? I wonder whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell us what is the size, for effective purposes, of our strategic stockpile of food looking ahead perhaps for the next 12 months. In short, can he tell us whether he can translate into concrete terms what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when he indicated that there would be a substantial raiding of our stockpile? I see that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head, but that is the impression I got.

Major Lloyd George: The hon Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that my right hon. Friend said he was going to raid the stockpile. It was a slowing down of the process of building up.

Mr. Willey: We have an appropriation-in-aid in this Supplementary Estimate of £1,500,000 against £100,000 in the original Estimate and in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I think we need an explanation of that.

The Chairman: I am afraid that that is out of order.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged, Sir Charles. I hope to raise the matter on the appropriate occasion and, at any rate, I have given the right hon. and gallant Gentleman notice of what I intend to do. When he replies, I should like him explicitly to assure the Committee that there is no intention of reducing the size of the present stock balance and that there is no intention of using for the trading account, that is, for ordinary consumption, any of the food at present in our food stockpile.
Apart from that, I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should tell the Committee what steps have been taken to ensure good and proper storage of the foodstuffs in the stockpile. This was a matter which aroused considerable interest when we were discussing stockpiling last year. I have no great apprehensions on that ground. Apart from my own experience with the Ministry, I served on the Estimates Committee and I think I speak for all members of that Committee in saying that we were very impressed by the way in which the Department safeguarded our food stocks.
But there are hon. Members who were very disturbed about the depredations


of the weevil in our food stocks. I believe some of them are present again tonight. [An HON. MEMBER: "The weevils?"] No, hon. Members; and I may be anticipating what they are about to say, but I think it would be helpful if the Minister assured us that these stocks are in a safe storage. Perhaps he will tell Members of the Committee, who naturally have some doubts about it in view of the cuts in capital investment, what steps are being taken now in the programme for providing proper accommodation for the food stocks we hold as a strategic stockpile.
In general, thanks to the past Government, we are in an overwhelmingly stronger position than we were when we went to war in 1939. We have a sounder agriculture and have a substantially larger food stockpile. It is because of that great advantage which we now enjoy that I think it would be foolish and tragic if the present Government, to overcome present difficulties, should take the fantastically foolish action of raiding these stockpiles.

Mr. H. Hynd: I should like to ask the Minister whether he can indicate how this extra sum of £8 million odd is to be spent, that is to say, whether he can describe the method by which the extra food is to be purchased. I was encouraged to hear him say a few minutes ago that he was pleased to announce the signature of two bulk purchase agreements. But the country was encouraged a few months ago to great expectations as to the possible economies in methods of purchasing food. The country was informed that methods of bulk purchase were to be dropped and business men sent to scour the world, presumably to spend less than the last Government spent by bulk purchase.

Mr. F. Harris: I think the hon. Member might be the first to admit that we have never sought anything else but long-term contracts with the Empire and the Commonwealth in order to get the production we need.

Mr. Hynd: That is the difficulty. Hon. Members opposite say one thing in Committee and in the House but at the Election they were saying something entirely different. I do not think there is any doubt at all that the country was

led to believe that when the Minister bought in future he would abandon what they called the wasteful method of bulk purchase and would effect great economies by sending these business men to scour the world and obtain food from all over the place.

Mr. Harris: rose—

The Chairman: The policy of bulk purchase is not under review. The Committee are being asked to vote money and the only question before us is why they were asked for too little in the first instance.

Mr. Hynd: That is the whole point I am trying to raise. Sir Charles. You have put it much better than I could have done. I am asking why the Minister is asking for £8,294,000 at the present time. If we are now being asked to vote a huge sum like this, I suggest, with great respect, that I might be in order in asking how and where the money is to be spent. I will not pursue election promises, but the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) is probably trying to interrupt me because of his bad conscience about some of the election speeches.
Have we any guarantee that this, money is to be spent to the best advantage under the well-tried system of the last Government, or is some new method to be introduced? If there is to be a new method, will we have a reduced demand under this heading in future, or are we to continue with bulk purchase? I think that is a very pertinent question to ask when we are faced with voting a huge sum of this kind.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: I should like to amplify what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. North (Mr. F. Willey) about cold storage. This is a most important matter and I am very concerned that there should be an extension of cold storage accommodation in this country. During the autumn and early winter there is a very large supply of English meat. Later on, after Christmas, we get a tremendous shortage, and my concern is that there should be a greater uniformity of the meat ration. I am wondering whether the Minister can give any


assurances that steps are being taken now to provide cold storage at the right time so that English meat can be frozen down in the autumn with a view to conserving it for the times of the year when meat is scarce. It has a very great influence on the question of stockpiling and reserves in time of need, and cold storage of this kind would be very valuable indeed to the country.

Major Lloyd George: I do not know that I can add a very great deal to what I have said. All I can say is that if the hon. Member wishes to be assured that the money is well spent, I can give him that assurance; but I can say no more than that it is being spent in order to build up our strategic reserves. I cannot go into details, but they are food reserves, obviously.
With regard to the question of the programme of storage, I hope that will be continued, only differing by a slight slowing down in relation to the slowing down of the stockpiling. I think the storage is pretty good. I have had only one complaint since I have been in the Ministry. It was a purely temporary thing and it was put right in quite a short time. We used our fairly extensive experience in the last war, and I think it can be regarded as perfectly satisfactory.
I am extremely sympathetic to the hon. Member's point of view about cold storage because I agree with him that, at a time of shortage in meat, it would be a very great advantage if we could utilise some of it, but our capacity is limited compared with that of other countries. If we could do that it would even out the period of the flush in the late summer. I am most sympathetic to the hon. Member's point of view and I will certainly look at it.
I do not think there is anything more I can usefully add to what I have said, and I hope the Committee will agree to this Vote.

Mr. F. Willey: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that I referred to a statement about raiding the stockpile. I want to call his attention to what the Chancellor said. I want to give him the opportunity, if necessary, of qualifying the impression he created when he made his interjection. The Chancellor said:

We shall in some cases have to use stocks acquired for the stockpile in order to reduce the current level of imports.
Later on he said:
We fully recognise—and I am trying to set out the case to the House because we are all taking part in this housekeeping together—[Laughter]—or, if we are not, we should be—we fully recognise that any use of stocks for current purposes is a once-and-for-all operation.
The impression I got from the Chancellor's statement was that there was an intention to save the purchase and importation of foodstuffs by using as a once-and-for-all operation some of the goods that had been already stockpiled in this country. I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to repeat the assurance, if he means to give it, that this does not apply to foodstuffs, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making his statement, was referring to other commodities than foodstuffs.

Major Lloyd George: I understood the Chancellor to say that he was not going to raid the stockpile for current requirements. Is not that what he said?

Mr. Willey: Just to make it clear, I will quote once more what the Chancellor said and then express the two possible interpretations of what he said; and then perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can help me. The Chancellor said:
We shall in some cases have to use stocks acquired for the stockpile in order to reduce the current level of imports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 47.]
This could refer to stocks acquired but not delivered. It is open to that interpretation; but I assumed that if that had been the interpretation, the Chancellor would have been more explicit in making it clear that that was his intention. I, and I think many of my hon. Friends, got the impression that what he was saying was quite simply what this appears to say—that during the present period of difficulty commodities might be taken out of the stockpile to reduce the strain on current imports. That would be a once-for-all operation, and the stocks would be made up later.

Major Lloyd George: Perhaps I could use the word "rations" instead of "requirements." I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have not robbed, and I hope we shall not rob, any stockpiles for the current rations.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I want to make a point which follows one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey). There is a figure of £6,640,000, which is the extra sum required for the purchase and storage of the extra food, and that assumes that a larger quantity is to be purchased. Yet, lower down, where we find the details, we see that there is a saving in the storage and handling of this food of £1,654,000, which is a very big sum indeed. It looks as though less rent is to be paid for accommodation and fewer ships are to be chartered for the purchase and storage of frozen meat.
Alternatively, it may relate to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North—that food has been purchased but has not yet arrived and that no provision is made in the Supplementary Estimate for the storage of that food. Of course, it may be that new methods of handling have been devised, although I doubt it. I cannot understand how such a large saving is to be secured in the storage of this food, and I think we are entitled to know how it is to be achieved. If it is through improved handling, it seems that some of us are to learn an interesting lesson, particularly those of us with experience in warehousing.

Mr. F. Harris: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) going to teach me a lesson? What he knows about this is very little indeed. I put the point in all seriousness and I think we are entitled to an explanation.

Major Lloyd George: I think I can give the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory explanation. I referred to the slowing up of stockpiling. This saving of £1,400,000 is explained by the slowing up in the process of building storage for the stockpile.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenses of the Ministry of Food in connection with the procurement and maintenance of strategic reserves.

CLASS IX. VOTE 4

Ministry of Transport (Shipping and War Terminal Services)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for certain shipping and inland transport services, including settlement of outstanding war-time commitments.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): This Supplementary Estimate ends with the very small token requirement of £10. As hon. Members will see, the net additional expenditure of £1,899,000 will be met entirely out of increased appropriations-in-aid, except for the £10.
Taking the different sub-heads one by one, perhaps I may give a very short explanation. I shall be very glad to answer any questions later in the debate. The first sub-head "Current Expenses," is the largest additional amount—£2,092,000, representing extra costs of hire and operation of troopers, mainly because of an extended trooping programme to the Far and Middle East. There is also included in this some allowance for increased prices. This expenditure is recovered in full from the Service Departments.
The second item—"Shipping (War Terminal), Hire and Expenses of Ships," Sub-head E.1—relates entirely to the settlement of certain outstanding obligations in respect of hire and expenses of ships incurred during the war which we now hope to clear a little sooner than we had expected. Against this expenditure we shall offset additional receipts from war-time earnings which will reduce the net charge to the Government by more than half.
Then there are the two remaining smaller items requiring an additional provision of £62,000 under Sub-head H for reimbursement to authorities of the cost of the removal of defence works causing obstruction on railways and docks, and a provision of £35,000 under Sub-head I which is needed in connection with the provision of certain safety equipment to be placed in reserve for certain merchant marine crews in the event of an emergency and for meeting part of the cost of the measures designed to increase the safety of certain ships in war-time.
I do not think there is very much more I can add to this explanation at this stage. If there is any other information I can give and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen desire to have, I shall certainly try to give it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for certain shipping and inland transport services, including settlement of outstanding war-time commitments.

CLASS IX. VOTE 5

Ministry of Fuel and Power (War Services)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the war services and certain other temporary services of the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

8.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): This Supplementary Estimate covers a fairly wide range of different possibilities, and I do not think that at this hour the Committee would wish me to go into detail on matters which are not interesting to it. If any hon. or right hon. Gentleman will say what particular item it is on which he desires further information, I shall be very happy to supply it.

Mr. H. Hynd: I should like further information about the increased charge under Sub-head D, the grants to local authorities and other expenses in connection with fuel control, and also about Subhead A.2 concerning the house coal distribution emergency scheme. I am wondering whether this extra expenditure can really be justified in connection with this coal distribution scheme.
My experience of the scheme is that it is not at all satisfactory. There is in fact no coal ration as such. There is a certain allocation of coal which is regarded as the maximum that any user can obtain, if he is lucky, but there is no coal ration in the sense that there is a ration of foodstuffs. The scheme works, roughly,

as I see it, through local fuel distribution officers allied with local voluntary committees and the coal distributors themselves. It is a very loose system, and I am not at all happy about the way it operates. It seems to me that people who can pull strings or exercise pressure on either the local fuel officer or the local committee of fuel merchants or both can get extra coal, and that others may have to go without.
In the first place, why is this extra amount required for this new scheme? Is it being tightened up? Or are the expenses of running the scheme increasing automatically? If it is a question of improving the scheme, perhaps we may be getting somewhere, because, in my opinion, the time has come to revise this scheme, to look at it very closely, and either to make it a proper rationing scheme or to do away with it altogether.
If the Government are looking for economies, and if they are not prepared to make a proper rationing scheme, there may be a field here in which they could save a quite considerable amount of money. I believe that if the local committees of coal merchants were prepared to continue to operate without the assistance—if it is assistance—of the local fuel officers they might serve the whole of the purpose covered by the present rather expensive scheme. Unless the Minister can explain why all this extra money is required for that purpose I shall have great doubt about voting this sum of money.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should dearly like to accept that challenge, but I am quite certain that were I to do so I should not be allowed to get very far. Unfortunately, the question of the merits of the distribution scheme for household coal is not a matter which arises on this Vote.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Surely my hon. Friend is entitled to know how the sum is arrived at.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The answer to the one legitimate point the hon. Gentleman raised is exceedingly short, and I was merely explaining that, unfortunately, I am not able to reply to allegations he has made about the operation of this scheme. I think I might be permitted to say, how-


ever, that it is about the most economic and efficient scheme which is run in connection with anything to do with allocations or rationing, and I should be very happy to have an opportunity of defending it.
The £5,000 increase was due to an upward revision of scales of the salaries and pay of the staffs involved. The £30,000 increase to the local authorities, who are the employers of the local fuel overseers, was due to a slight increase in their salaries. In addition, it was somewhat augmented by the introduction of the coke rationing, or rather, control scheme. Those two items together make up the £30,000 extra required under that head.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I do not want to argue the merits of the scheme, which I agree is a good one, although it sometimes works out very badly. Recently I have had occasion to call the attention of the local fuel overseer to long delays in supplying coal to people who have a storage capacity of only 2 cwt. or 3 cwt., and who have had to wait a month after ordering their coal before getting a fresh supply. That inevitably means that for a period they have no coal, which in cold weather involves an enormous amount of discomfort.
When complaints about this sort of thing are made to the fuel overseer, it is no excuse for him to say that the coal was delivered within a month. I should like to know whether the Minister will ensure that, as far as possible, these deliveries are speeded up, and that the supplies of coal in the depôts are maintained. On one occasion in my own constituency some three or four months ago I discovered that the coal supplies had dropped to an almost infinitesimal amount, and when I complained about it a large supply was placed in the depôt.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now going beyond this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Gibson: All I ask is that some of this additional money may be spent in improving the way in which the scheme works. I hope the Minister can give me some hope in that respect.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The hon. Gentleman has really answered himself. As he

said, this is not a rationing scheme. It is an allocation scheme. It is not a ration of fuel for which the Ministry are responsible. If his constituents are unable to obtain fuel to which they are entitled—

Mr. Gibson: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman suggests that this is not a scheme for which the Ministry are responsible. Surely the fuel overseer represents the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and he is responsible for seeing that the allocations are properly shared out in the area he covers.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It is not a ration for which the Ministry is responsible.

Mr. Hobson: It should be.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It never has been. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of arguing the point in the last Government over a considerable number of years, but evidently he did not take it up with them. The answer is quite simple. If his constituent is unable to obtain coal to within the limit to which he is entitled from his coal merchant, he should take the matter up with the coal merchant.

Mr. Hobson: A point on which I should like a little elucidation is the storage and distribution of oil. I am not concerned so much with the distribution of oil, but I am concerned about the storage of oil. I would like to know if this sum includes the storage of oil for the British Electricity Authority, who are converting and building a power station to run on oil.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The Minister has explained that Items A.2 and D, involving sums of £5,000 and £30,000, are entirely due to increased salaries paid to those who administer the scheme. I wonder if he has available with him information as to the number of people altogether involved who administer it?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: To answer the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) first, I do not think that he has read the figure in quite the right way. The figure of £603,000 for storage and distribution of oil is, in fact, a saving; it is not an expenditure at all. It is a saving which results from a reduction.

The Deputy-Chairman: Savings cannot be discussed.

Dr Stross: I asked whether the Minister having told us that the sums of £5,000 and £30,000 were entirely due to increased salaries to those who administer the scheme could give us the total number of those involved.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am afraid that I have not the figures available. They are national figures, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have them, I will certainly forward them to him.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the war services and certain other temporary services of the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

CLASS IX. VOTE 7

Administration of certain African Territories

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for salaries and expenses in connection with the administration of certain African territories and for meeting deficiencies on the annual accounts of such territories, including grants in aid.

8.54 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Perhaps it will help the Committee if I briefly supplement the rather short and cryptic explanation of this loan to Cyrenaica which appears in the Estimate. This loan arises from certain serious drought conditions which prevailed in Cyrenaica after the failure of the harvest in 1951, when it became necessary for the Government of Cyrenaica to import 18,000 tons of grain, valued at over £800,000, to supplement their depleted stocks.
The Government of Cyrenaica was unable to finance the whole cost of the import from local resources and asked Her Majesty's Government for financial assistance to this end. In view of the responsibility which we then held as the administering power, and after we had carefully investigated and verified the prevailing local conditions, an interest-free loan of £250,000 was granted to the Cyrenaica Government.
The Prime Minister of the Government of Cyrenaica, in a written acknowledgement of the loan, has given an assurance that it will be repaid by 30th June, 1952. Since the loan was required by Cyrenaica at the time the import took place during September and October, a sum of £250,000 was advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund at that time.

Mr. H. Hynd: The Committee is delighted to hear about the loan. On the one hand, the action displays a laudable willingness to help unfortunate communities who suffer through no fault of their own, and, on the other hand, it is an indication of the way in which, in spite of all its difficulties, this country is prepared to help less fortunate parts of the world.
We are often criticised for accepting help from other parts of the world. This shows that, in spite of all our difficulties, we can hold out a helping hand to Cyrenaica in these circumstances. I am sure no one will grudge the small amount of expenditure which is involved. We only hope that this action will bring great benefit to Cyrenaica.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to associate myself with what has been said. I am sure there must be a very great spirit of gratitude in Cyrenaica as a result of this action. All I hope is that, as a result of the actions of the present Government, we shall not in a very short time be going to Cyrenaica in order to borrow money for our own purposes.

Dr. Stross: This small action symbolises the way powerful nations should behave towards those who need assistance in times of distress. One would like to see this done in a very much bigger way all the world over, with a great central organisation ready to help any country needing assistance.
I should be glad if the Minister could tell us the type of grain which was sent to Cyrenaica. Was it wheat or coarse grain? I should also like to know whether, according to the Minister's information, it has been sufficient to tide Cyrenaica over this drought and if he has any information about the present food situation in that country.

Sir Herbert Williams: I should be glad if my hon. Friend could give me some information about certain savings.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not in order.

Mr. Nutting: In reply to my hon. Friend, that is precisely what I am not entitled to do. All I can say is that, as my hon. Friend will see, we expect to have fairly considerable savings under other sub-heads and that the net estimated Vote amounts to £10.
In reply to the first point put by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), speaking without the book, I believe that it was wheat which was mainly required and which was supplied through the assistance of the loan. I understand that it was sufficient to tide Cyrenaica over her difficulties.
As for the future, we are investigating every practicable method open to us of assisting Cyrenaica to face any further difficulties of this nature. We are doing our utmost to further agricultural development throughout the State of Libya. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, in the British Middle East Office at Fayid we have a Development Division which has done a great deal of good work in the Middle East as a whole and will devote its energies to assisting Cyrenaica in this field.

Mr. M. Follick: I do not know if I am in order in putting this question, but could the Joint Under-Secretary of State tell me if in that new country he has taken any steps to divert the caravan routes—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member's suspicions were quite right. He is not in order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for salaries and expenses in connection with the administration of certain African territories and for meeting deficiencies on the annual accounts of such territories, including grants in aid.

CLASS IX. VOTE 9

War Damage Commission

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the War Damage Commission.9.0 p.m.

9.0 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The only reason it is necessary to come to the Committee and ask for this Supplementary Estimate is the need to make further provision for the salaries of the staff of the Commission. There are two types of salary which together have contributed to the need to ask for this Supplementary Estimate. For the technical staff of the Commission, the Gardiner Report involves an advance to those in that category, and the normal increase in Civil Service rates, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little time ago, affects the administrative staff. It is necessary to ask for this additional sum in order to make good the salary increases.

Mr. Douglas Jay: We can well understand that salary rates in this case have been rising as they have in many other cases, and on account of that an extra sum is necessary, but can the Financial Secretary tell us whether it has been possible to make a reduction in the number of the staff? My memory of this matter is that this is one Department where, mercifully, activities are running down, and I should have thought it possible to achieve a saving of staff, taking into account the Commission's relationship with the Central Land Board.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Some reductions have been made and others are being made, which, of course, will not affect the provision in the current financial year. I should say that we would have had to ask for this increase for salaries even after those reductions have been made. The number of men affected in the reduction of staff will appear in the main Estimates for the forthcoming year.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the War Damage Commission.

CLASS IX. VOTE 14

Ministry of Materials

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment


during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Materials.

9.3 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): As regards Subhead A in this Estimate, an additional sum of £20,000 is required to provide for the pay increases which have been granted to the staff as from 1st January, increases which have just been referred to by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In the General and Miscellaneous Services under Sub-head B, an additional sum of £10,000 on the original Estimate of £108,000 is needed. This addition is required to meet the direct contribution —£4,100—made by Her Majesty's Government towards the general running costs of the International Materials Conference, the details of which were not known when the original Estimate was prepared.
A further sum of £2,700 is required to meet the increased costs of foreign service allowances of locally-engaged staff in Washington, in connection with the International Materials Conference. Then there is a further additional sum of £3,200 to cover the salaries of three interpreters whom we contribute to the International Materials Conference. Everyone who is familiar with the excellent work which Lord Knollys and his comparatively small staff in Washington have performed in connection with the International Materials Conference, and generally in our relations with the United States authorities, will agree that this additional sum is in every way justified.

Mr. H. Hynd: I do not propose to offer any objection to this sum; indeed, I welcome it. I think the Minister will agree that the expenditure under Subhead B in relation to the International Materials Conference is one of the most profitable investments that a Government has made in recent times.
While the International Materials Conference was brought about as a result of war conditions, to a large extent because of the scramble for raw materials in order to stockpile, it has given us a new instrument that I hope will be a permanent institution that will bring us a great deal of benefit in peace-time in the future. Here, for the first time in history, the

nations of the world are getting together to allocate as far as possible the scarce raw materials of the world.
The Committee ought to take pleasure in voting this expenditure, certainly much more pleasure than in voting sums of money on things normally allied to war purposes. I do not think of this as war expenditure but as a very profitable experiment in international co-operation and the allocation of raw materials. Much of the trouble that has led to war has been the scramble for just this kind of raw material now being allocated by this new machinery.

Sir H. Williams: No.

Mr. Hynd: The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), says "No." One expects him to say "No," but it does not alter the course of my argument. It is true to say that wars have been caused in the past because one nation has been trying to get raw materials from another. Here, we are getting together and allocating those raw materials, and the House should have no doubt about voting this trivial sum which will save us considerable outlay upon war expenditure in the future.

Sir H. Williams: I said "No" to what the hon. Gentleman said, because he did not give one solitary example in recent times of any war caused by nations scrambling for raw materials.

The Deputy-Chairman: The causes of war do not come within the Estimate.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Gentleman opposite has been permitted to make statements and I think I am justified in asking that he should justify his statement. If it was out of order, he should not have been permitted to make it.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may have made that statement, but he may not justify it.

Dr. Stross: I, too, have great pleasure in voting this modest sum, if only because we all have vivid memories of the confusion when we were all bidding for materials in short supply, such as wool, cotton and so on. We saw then the remarkable rise in prices to the detriment of all of us. Any organisation of this description which helps to bring about an equitable distribution of these goods must meet with our approval.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Materials.

CLASS IX. VOTE 17

Tin Purchase

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,092,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Materials for the purchase, storage and handling of tin for sale to the Government of the United States of America.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Hopkinson: The need for this Estimate arises out of the agreement concluded by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his recent visit to the United States in regard to steel and other raw materials, which was published as a White Paper, Command 8464.
Briefly the position was that we needed steel and iron ore. The United States wanted aluminium and tin. Under the agreement the United States Government undertook to supply to the United Kingdom in 1952 1,400,000 short tons of steel or its equivalent in ore, scrap and pig iron. We get this steel at the American controlled prices; that is, the prices of different types of steel to the American home consumer, as opposed to the far higher prices for American export steel. From the point of view both of re-armament and of our export trade this is of the highest possible importance.
In return, Her Majesty's Government undertake first to make a loan to the United States Government of 15,000 metric tons of aluminium in addition to the original loan of 10,000 metric tons which formed the subject of a previous agreement in November last.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is this the first loan we have made to the United States of America?

Mr. Hopkinson: As regards tin, Her Majesty's Government undertake to deliver to the United States Government 20,000 long tons of tin between the date of the signature of the agreement and

the end of the year. As hon. Members will be aware, tin has been a thorny subject between ourselves and the United States for nearly a year. A great many accusations were made in the United States about the price and the output arrangements in regard to Malayan tin which were in my view wholly unjustified. However, bitterness and suspicion certainly existed in America and led to a series of developments which have been equally damaging to the United States and Great Britain. On the one hand, the United States went out of the market for tin metal and one of the most important dollar earning industries of the sterling area ceased to earn dollars and has earned none since.
On the other hand, the United States became increasingly short of tin, a shortage which by the end of the year had become acute. In passing, I would mention that a goodwill mission, which the Malayan Government invited the United States Government to send to Malaya, spent two or three weeks there early in November seeing at first hand the operations of producing and marketing tin. The idea that producers were restricting output was entirely dispelled, and tributes were paid by the American team to the way in which Malayan producers were maintaining production in spite of their great difficulties, including of course guerilla activities. But the visit of the mission did not bring the United States any nearer to the resumption of tin buying.
It was quite obvious that it was in the interests of everybody to find a way out of this impasse. This was achieved by the Agreement concluded by my right hon. Friend. Not only have we acquired a great addition to the supplies of steel which we so badly need, but we have opened up the path to a return to normal American buying of Malayan tin.
9.15 p.m.
In order that the Committee may understand the need for the additional expenditure contemplated in the Supplementary Estimate, perhaps I may be allowed very briefly to describe the main features of the section of the Agreement on tin. Tin amounting, as I have said, to 20,000 long tons will be bought by the United States at one dollar 18 cents a lb., which is the equivalent of £944 a ton.

Mr. H. Hynd: How does that compare with the current market price?

Mr. Hopkinson: The current market price per ton in Malaya is £963, and in London, £982. The Agreement provides that if we deliver any tin other than Straits quality, there shall be a discount, which amounts to about 1 cent a lb. For tin of that quality, therefore, we should get £936 a ton.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Is £936 the figure for long tons?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, long tons.

Mr. Colegate: Is my hon. Friend speaking of long tons throughout?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes.
We are limited by the Agreement to deliver a maximum of 5,000 tons of tin other than Straits quality. We shall, of course, be paid in dollars, and the minimum that we shall get out of this transaction is 52 million dollars. There is, however, a most favoured nation clause, under which, if during the period of the agreement the United States pays a higher price for tin to any other suppliers elsewhere, such as Bolivia or Indonesia, the balance of the tin which we are to deliver will be paid for at that higher price.
There is also a clause which precludes the United States, either directly or indirectly, from competing with us in the Malayan markets without our knowledge and so forcing up prices unnecessarily. If tin of Malayan origin is purchased by the United States through suppliers other than Her Majesty's Government, the most favoured nation clause again applies. In addition there is provision for a contribution towards any possible losses if the United States buys Malayan tin through a third party at less than one dollar, 18 cents a lb.
Under the Agreement, the 20,000 tons of tin are to be delivered to the United States in roughly equal quarterly instalments. This means that 5,000 tons must be delivered before the end of March. As these transactions will take place partly in this financial year and partly in 1952–53, we have to submit a Supplementary Estimate and an Estimate for next year. It has not been possible to calculate exactly how much tin will actually have been delivered and paid for before 31st March, but we have assumed

that it will amount to 4,000 tons. There will, however, also be tin which has been delivered and not yet paid for by the United States or tin which is in transit. All this, however, will have had to be paid for already by Her Majesty's Government.
That accounts for the difference between the provision in the Estimate for £7,800,000 for purchases and storage of tin and £3,700,000 for receipts from the United States. It is not any indication of expected loss, and subsequent substantial further receipts for tin bought and paid for by the Ministry during the current year will be allowed for in next year's Estimate, which will cover the remainder of the transaction.
It is impossible to say at present what the final outcome of the tin transaction will be in terms of cash. The Committee will not expect me to go into details of the methods we are using, and shall use, to obtain tin which we have undertaken to sell to the United States. I can assure hon. Members that the Ministry will exercise all due prudence in their buying and will act on the best advice they can obtain so as to mitigate the effect of our operations on prices.
In the end there may be a cash loss on the sale of tin, but this must not be taken for granted. In the opinion of the Government it would be far more than compensated by the arrangements my right hon. Friend was able to make for the supply of steel. There is also the fact that we have ensured an immediate flow of dollars for a commodity which is vitally important to the dollar balances of the sterling area but which has not been earning dollars since the United States went out of the Malayan tin market.
Finally, the removal of the Anglo-American friction which prevailed on the sale of tin is a further justification. I feel the Committee will agree that these three factors, taken together, will more than compensate for any cash loss which may be sustained in the end.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: This Supplementary Estimate, as has been stated by the Minister, and as is stated in the document, arises from the Agreement with the United States Government dated 18th January. As the policy underlying the Agreement has never been discussed by


the House and is therefore new, I take it that we have greater latitude in discussing this Supplementary Estimate than the others with which we have been dealing.
Of course we on this side of the Committee are delighted that this Agreement was arrived at with the United States. It will bring very substantial benefit to this country and we are glad that the negotiations which were opened by the previous Government, by my right hon. Friend who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer when he discussed in broad outline some such exchange of materials, later fructified into this Agreement.
There are two comments I wish to make before discussing the matter in detail and before considering to what extent there are bad aspects of this Agreement. First, I make the general political comment that it is interesting to see that the present Government, so far from doing away with the bulk purchasing arrangements made by the Labour Government, are not only accepting all those of the previous Government but extending the system of bulk purchase, as in this proposal. Here is an arrangement for bulk exchange of substantial quantities of metal. It is an innovation, a welcome one, and makes nonsense of all the declarations of the Conservative Party that they were against bulk purchase.
The second point, which I hope the Government will acknowledge, is that this Agreement was only made possible by the foresight of the previous Government in buying very substantial quantities of aluminium from Canada. We did that when there was some question as to whether we really ought to do it. It involved us in considerable dollar expenditure. This was last year and the dollar situation was even then not too rosy, but we made up our minds that it was in the interests of the country and of the sterling area as a whole that we should buy very much greater quantities than we had originally bargained for in order to secure the aluminium supplies we required for ourselves and, maybe, for our friends. It is that additional amount of aluminium we now possess which has made the Agreement possible. The United States authorities were so desperately short of aluminium that it may be without our aluminium to bargain with, this

Agreement could not have been concluded.
We are told in the White Paper that we are to get the steel to which we are entitled—135,000 tons in the first quarter and 250,000 tons in the second quarter. I should like to know whether we have received or are likely to receive that full amount in the first quarter and whether, as far as we can tell, the 250,000 tons will come in the second quarter.
It would have been much better for us, naturally, if we had received higher quantities in the first and second quarters. It would have evened out the supply during the year as we are evening out the delivery of tin and aluminium to the United States. One might think that the American authorities might have gone out of their way, even at some inconvenience to themselves, and delivered us substantial quantities in the first and second quarters of this year. I presume that every pressure was put on the American authorities to do that, and that the Government were unsuccessful. I regret it because it would have made the Agreement much more attractive and beneficial if this had been possible.
There are two features of the tin purchases by the American Government which appear to me to be curious, and, in a way, objectionable. The first question one is bound to ask is this. The American authorities want tin, but we do not produce tin in this country, or at any rate hardly any. They want 20,000 tons. Why then do they ask us to buy this tin for them from another country—true it is a British Colony, but whose economy we do not fully control—when they could perfectly well go to that colony or anywhere else and buy the metal themselves? Why should we be asked to buy this tin for them?
That is a peculiar provision and arises, maybe, out of the bad blood which has existed between Malaya and the United States on this tin question in the past and is a continuation—I hope it will not continue any longer—of the suspicion—in my view wholly unfounded—with which the American authorities have regarded the tin market and the extraordinary suspicion which they cast on this free market, as it is, even though the Americans like free markets. They have been very suspicious in the past, and presumably it is


for that reason that they ask us to buy this metal for them when obviously they could have bought it just as well themselves.
The second point is that we are selling the tin to them at a fixed price—£944 a ton. We are having the steel from the United States at a price which may vary considerably during the year. It is true that it is called a controlled price. It is the internal price and not the export price, but that controlled price might presumably increase substantially during the year. There are rumours that the price of iron and steel is going to be put up in this country. It may be put up in the United States.
Therefore, we are in the really ridiculous and unfair situation that we have undertaken to sell to the United States substantial quantities of tin at a price below the current market price, whereas we are going to buy from the United States steel at whatever the controlled price may be in that country. If costs go up there, then the price of steel goes up. That seems to me to be a most unfair situation and to be deprecated. It may possibly involve the Government in very substantial losses.
Tin is a volatile metal. The price may go up substantially during the year if a big world demand for it develops. It is a free market and the price may go up £100 or £200 a ton, in which case the Government are bound to stand the loss, and not the individual producers. There is no suggestion that the producers should be asked to accept £944 a ton.
My own view is that that is a fair price in a sense; it well covers production costs of most producers in Malaya. But if the price goes up substantially, the British Government, and not the producers in Malaya or the Malayan Government, will have to stand the loss, sell the tin to the United States on the basis of £944 a ton, and, may be, pay the producers a very much larger price. If that happens— hope it will not—it would be a ridiculous state of affairs and would show that this Agreement, welcome as it is as a whole, particularly in view of the substantial quantities of steel which it is going to bring to us, contains unfair conditions, too, which we very much regret.
I should like very much to know—and I think the Government ought to tell us —whether they agreed to these obviously unreasonable and unfair conditions willingly because they thought them right or because they were really forced to do so in order to make a bargain at all. If they did it because they thought it right and desirable then we shall attack them very seriously, but if they did it, as I suspect they did, because the American authorities insisted that this was a condition of making an agreement, let us know and we shall know where we are and where to direct our criticisms.
9.30 p.m.
The policy of the United States authorities on tin has been exceptional. In respect of almost every other commodity their attitude has been fair, reasonable, co-operative and even generous. Apart from difficulties caused to our economy and the economy of the world by their stock-piling on much too heavy a scale in the early days, since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went to the United States to discuss the matter with the American authorities they have been very anxious and willing and fair in making agreements to divide scarce materials.
But tin has throughout been an exception. Their policy has been so ridiculous as to succeed at the same time in doing substantial damage to the economy of both the United States and the rest of the world, and particularly of the sterling area. Last year the United States bought practically no tin at all. The year before they bought a little over 40,000 tons. The difference between 40,000 tons and practically none at all is, in money, something like £40 million.
America bought £40 million worth less tin last year than they did in the year before. That decision made a significant contribution to bringing about the present economic crisis of the sterling area. At the same time the American economy was starved of tin and tin consumers in the United States were screaming for more. They had to curtail their manufacture, and they criticised very severely and, in the end, successfully the American authorities for this policy. American policy in this matter has plainly been most unwise and indeed damaging.
I hope this Agreement shows a change of heart and mind and that in future the


American authorities will consider the tin problem which closely affects this country and our balance of payments problem not in the prejudiced way in which they have done in the last few years but reasonably and logically, and that we may get closer together. For that reason and because we believe it will open the path for better agreement in the future with regard to tin, and even more because of the substantial amount of steel it is going to bring us late in the year—which we would rather have had earlier in the year—we welcome this agreement as a whole and we willingly endorse the Supplementary Estimate before the Committee. But we hope we shall have a further explanation from the Government, particularly of the matters I have raised in the comments I have just made.

Mr. Colegate: I must confess I was a little confused by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth, Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). First, we were told that America was very generous and then we were treated to the usual Labour Party charges against and suspicions of America. Later still we were told that bulk purchase was a wonderful thing and that there had been an agreement on bulk purchase, a method of purchase which this side of the Committee criticised when in opposition. We were told that by the right hon. Gentleman, but in the latter part of his speech he said what a dreadful thing it was for the American economy that the United States Government made a bulk purchase of tin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense.] The right hon. Gentleman said that the year before last the United States made bulk purchases of tin of 40,000 tons.

The Chairman: We are not discussing bulk purchase as such. We are discussing a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Colegate: I want to try to be well within the limits of order, but the right hon. Gentleman gave us that figure concerning the bulk purchase of tin by the United States and the chaos it caused in American industry. Am I not allowed to follow the right hon. Gentleman?

The Chairman: No. I think my predecessor in the Chair must have been kinder than I am.

Mr. Colegate: I must limit my remarks, but it is clear that this agreement is an extremely satisfactory one. This purchase of tin was welcomed, with all its possible disadvantages, because the main point of this agreement is surely that it was come to in order to get what is much more valuable, namely, one million tons of steel.

The Chairman: I should like to apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I did not know this was a new Estimate; I thought it was a Supplementary Estimate. I am sorry.

Mr. Colegate: Thank you, Sir Charles. I am glad of the latitude you give me. I should like to enlarge a little about the inconsistencies to which we are constantly treated from the other side in regard to the virtues or the defects of bulk purchases. In effect, what the right hon. Gentleman said was that whereas it was a virtue for the late Government to indulge in bulk purchase, the moment the United States Government indulged in bulk purchase it was a very bad thing and created great chaos in America.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: indicated dissent.

Mr. Colegate: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head.

Mr. Strauss: If it is no good shaking my head, perhaps I had better get up. I said nothing remotely resembling what the hon. Gentleman said. If he reads tomorrow's HANSARD, he will see what I said.

Mr. Colegate: I took down the words of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the United States purchases of tin the year before last were 40,000 tons—let him correct me if I am wrong—and that in the following year they purchased no tin whatever. Am I right so far?

Mr. Strauss: Yes.

Mr. Colegate: Very well. The right hon. Member then said that this was to the great detriment of the United States industry. Am I right?

Mr. Strauss: Yes.

Mr. Colegate: Very well. Therefore, his bulk purchase argument failed. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether or not he likes bulk purchase. He must


not constantly give the argument one way and turn round a few minutes later and give a totally opposite view of the situation.

Dr. Stross: I think the Committee have a right to ask the hon. Member this question. If 40,000 tons were purchased in one year and no tons were purchased in the next year, how much bulk purchase does no tons of tin represent?

Mr. Colegate: The hon. Gentleman is so concerned with mathematics and yet he does not know that there are such things as zero quantities and negative quantities. The positive quantity of bulk purchase of tin was 40,000 tons in one year. What we want to know is what we get in return. I think the Committee would like to know what we mean by one million tons of steel. We are entitled to a little more information on the subject.
Does it mean that we are to get one million tons of steel billets or mild steel or high tensile steel wire—which is one of the shortages in industry today? Does it mean sheets, plates, ship plates? What does it mean? We are entitled to know a little more clearly what is meant by one million tons of steel. It will mean a very great deal to the ship building industry, to the engineering industry and to others if we get the categories of steel which we require and not merely one million tons of mild steel.
I do not know how much information is in the possession of the Minister, but we should be glad to know what information he has. In any event, there is no doubt that it has been well worth while to make the transaction, even with the limitations given by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, with his great family knowledge of the metal trading market. It seems to me that it is a highly advantageous agreement to British industry to have this one million tons of steel.
No arguments as to whether bulk purchase is good or bad can be drawn from a single agreement of this kind, which must have been largely conditioned by the fact that as a result of the actions, or rather the mismanagement, of the late Government we were short of the necessary dollars to operate open-market transactions.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: We have been invited by the hon.

Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) to clear up our internal contradictions on these benches about bulk purchase. I was relieved, Sir Charles, that you changed your mind in your Ruling about this, because during the day I have been to some trouble to find out some of the consistencies and inconsistencies over bulk purchase which seem to afflict so horribly the present Members of the Government.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that this is a very welcome agreement, bringing to this country a considerable amount of very welcome steel. It is, however, one of the biggest interventions of a Government in what hon. Gentlemen then in opposition would have described as the normal rôle of the private trader, which has ever happened in the history of this country. It is a revolutionary process on which we congratulate them very sincerely indeed, but in attempting today, before the debate, to find out what processes of thought and reasoning and argument have been going on in the Conservative Party to change their attitude upon bulk purchase, I went round to the Conservative political centre.

Mr. Hobson: Shame.

Mr. Fienburgh: It is fair enough, for if people come to Transport House they got a logical answer, and I thought that if I went to the Conservative political centre I should get a logical answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I remembered the general approach to bulk purchase and to State trading which was manifested by hon. Members opposite during the election campaign and for several years before it. They converted bulk purchase, which in its essence is a fairly relevant but not huge medium of conducting economic exchange, into a major principle of politics. They blamed upon bulk purchase all the increases in prices, all the increases in costs which have been inflicted upon this country. They blamed the civil servants who were operating the bulk purchase agreements and insulted the business men employed by the Ministries to put the agreements through. Now they show a complete and utter reformation of character.
9.45 p.m.
I therefore went to the Conservative political centre to see what had been happening. I was met there by a very


charming, typical young Conservative girl —typical because she was charming—charming but vague. I asked her to look around for current publications of the Conservative Party on bulk purchase. But the shelves had been wiped clean. There was nothing to be seen at all. I wondered why. After all, when the leaders of certain totalitarian States alter their minds on issues of policy, all the history books disappear and the propaganda sheets disappear because they retrospectively have got to be rewritten to add up to the current policy being adumbrated.
I had a wonderful vision of the research workers of the Conservative Party re-writing—I see you are about to stop me, Sir Charles. I am sorry if I have overstepped the bounds of order. It is very hard for a new Member. I may he allowed just one or two slight verges over the border. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should not be surprised if I over-stepped the bounds of order, because having seen the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) ruled out of order today, I have seen everything in this Chamber.
After some trouble—and I come now to the real point of the matter—after some considerable amount of digging into the files, a very interesting booklet was produced that was published by the Conservative Party, entitled, "The State as a Merchant." The peroration to this book was a quotation of a peroration by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman is at his best in his perorations. I was very interested to hear that he personally had negotiated this particular agreement, because until now the actual negotiation and who negotiated it has been a matter of mystery. The right hon. Gentleman in this quotation said:
The method of large scale State buying of food and raw materials which, in so many instances, has led to grievous issue, must be closely reviewed, searchingly scrutinised, and due recourse must be had once again to the flexible channels of normal trade processes, upon which our crowded population had reached before the war a higher standard than existed anywhere in Europe.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I am very glad to hear that cheering by hon. Gentlemen opposite of that remark, because it was precisely that

which the late Government did in respect of this particular market. They did restore this market; they did restore this commodity to flexible channels and normal trade processes. The Prime Minister, however, goes to Washington, tears up his peroration, ignores his principles, and agrees to a bargain based upon a system which he previously impugned, and then has the impudence to come back and claim that as a personal triumph. It is the very first time we have seen such a rapid refutation of principle regarded as a triumph.
I am just dealing, on this Vote, with the method by which the agreement was reached that leads to the need for this particular Supplementary Estimate. I am interested, too, to see that in this respect this particular agreement for which we are being asked to provide the funds is an instance of trading relations being entered into as an instrument of foreign affairs, because it is being said that one of the most vital points about this agreement is that it does sweeten the diplomatic channels between this country and the United States of America. I really must warn the Foreign Secretary about the viper he is nursing in the Foreign Office in regard to this issue of state trading. I looked up today the remarks made by the Minister of State who, on 12th May, 1950, said:
What I object to more than anything else"—
more than to Stalin, more than to unemployment, more than to anything else—
is the handling of the trade operations of the nation by Government Departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1950; Vol. 475, c. 766.]
Now we have the trading relations of the nation handled by the one-man Government Department represented by the Prime Minister. I must say that it is in no spirit of animosity that I bring forward this remark made by the Minister of State. It is incidental to my point that he was my brigadier during the war, when I was a mere major on his staff. On the whole, he was a very good one indeed, and I very seldom had reason to complain of him at all.
But was this a good agreement? We have already had expounded to us by my right hon. Friend some of the very grave defects of this agreement. It might have been better if the Conservatives had


sent a real business man to conduct these negotiations. I quote now from the "Daily Telegraph." I prefer to quote from the "Daily Telegraph"; it is so much safer, because I cannot be accused of partisanship, as I might be if I were to quote from the "Daily Herald." The "Daily Telegraph" of 19th January said:
We undertake a certain risk of having to pay something more than £944 a ton for the tin.
That risk has already been faced. It has happened. We are now having to pay more than £944 a ton for that tin. Where is this tin to come from? That has not yet been made absolutely clear. Some of the tin may come from stocks, in which case we are once again dissipating our stockpile in this country, or wherever we may hold it. Some, and the bulk, of it will certainly have to be bought in open market operations, with no coverage against loss.
Now, I know that there is a most-favoured-nation clause written into the agreement; the agreement as I understand it, lays down that if the United States buying in the open market buys at more than 1 dollar 18 cents per lb., then a compensatory adjustment will be made for us. Similarly, if they are able to buy at less than that sum there will be compensation as far as we are concerned.
What has the United States done since this agreement was made? It has used the pressure of this agreement upon the South American tin producers to insist upon agreements at 1 dollar 18 cents per ton. That has been happening since we made the agreement, so they are covered; they are paying a price which does not mean that they have to pay a compensatory adjustment to Great Britain. But we are still having to operate in the open market, and still having to buy our tin, and will have to buy our tin, at prices in excess of the £944 per ton which we are receiving from the United States.
Why has this situation arisen? Why is the United States so avid for tin? It is only a very short time ago that they were insisting on staying out of the market until they had beaten the price down to £800 per ton; that was the price at which they said they would come into the market again. They have not succeeded in beating the price down so far. They have not succeeded because of the internal

pressure of their own tin users. Therefore, I repeat the point made by my right hon. Friend; they had to have tin. Why should they not go on the open market for that tin, direct to the Malayan producers of tin? Why should the British Government be brought into this issue as tin brokers—as brokers operating as no successful businessman would? The party opposite is the party of businessmen. Why should they operate as brokers at a consistent, steady and inevitable loss all along the line?
Finally, I should like just to touch on the question of the steel we are to get in return. Again I quote from the "Daily Telegraph," so that I shall not be accused of being partisan in my selection of quotations. All my quotations tonight have come from the other side. One of the useful things about the Conservative Party is that they say so much that one can pick them up on practically any issue at some time or another.
On the same date, 19th January, the "Daily Telegraph" said that the price at which a million tons of steel have been bought is not yet disclosed, but it is understood to be higher than has been paid recently, and that an increase of between £1 and £1 10s. per ton in the selling price of steel in this country is considered possible. There we have the circumstances of the bargain in this case: we are selling at a loss which will be a charge on the taxpayer, and we are buying in such a way as will impose extra cost on the consumer, the user of steel, and in fact on everybody in the community who uses steel in any of its many forms. That does not strike me as being a particularly good bargain, under any kind of definition.
But there is a further point about this steel. We have already been told that 80 per cent. of it is to come in the form of steel over which we have no control at all. It has come in types and forms of steel selected by the Americans, and it is going to be the kind of steel, inevitably and naturally—and I do not blame the Americans one iota for showing that they are smart business men when our own Government are not—of which they had the least use themselves. Whether it will fit into our industrial production programme and our re-armament programme is a thing we shall find out when the steel has arrived.
The Americans have taken every scrap of raw material for the making of steel. Here again, we have not made a very good showing. We could and should have been making that steel in this country much cheaper had the United States not scooped up all the raw materials and scrap from Europe some time ago, and made it inevitably harder for us to get the scrap material for it. I compliment the Americans on the astute way in which they have bettered the businessmen who represent this country in America. I am not anti-American, I have only one antipathy—I am anti-Tory, and I am anti-Tory on this particular thing because it is a reversal of principle in a remarkably short time, and not only that, but a demonstration that the party of businessmen are not businessmen at all.
I do not blame the Conservative Party for being converted to the principles of State trading. The harsh economic facts of life, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, have eventually been impressed upon them, and they now realise the validity of many of the arguments we adduced in support of State trading some time ago. I do not blame them for operating State purchasing, or State trading, or bulk purchase. I do not blame the Americans for getting the best of this particular bargain, but I do blame the Government, after having finally been converted to the principle of State trading, for making such a horrible hash and mess of it as to demonstrate that they have no right ever again to face the country and harp on the superiority of the administrative and negotiating capacities of the Conservative Party.

Mr. John Grimston: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), has chosen a very unfortunate series of commodities on which to read

us a lecture on bulk buying. If he had known as much as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) about the metals which we are discussing, he would have known that all the arguments which he has been using against us with regard to bulk buying have very little validity whatever when applied to metals.
I will come to the matter of prices in a moment. May I first deal with the speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall? Much of that speech was devoted to criticising American policy and saying how misguided it was. It may be that there is little difference of opinion between us as to whether the Americans have or have not been pursuing a wise policy, but the fact remains that the position when my right hon. Friend went to America was that negotiations regarding tin had been bedevilled for many years. As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the Americans had stated publicly that they would not under any circumstances pay more than 1.12 dollars per lb. for tin. Those responsible for buying tin had stated that and then the man responsible for buying had resigned. That was the position when my right hon. Friend had to go to America. The fact that he made a deal at all under the circumstances is a very creditable thing to have done.
As regards the price, the hon. Gentleman said a great deal about the fact that we could have got a very much higher price. We all know that in a period of acute re-armament we can get very high prices indeed, but I wonder if the price of £1,600 a ton for tin—

It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

ROAD SAFETY

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Redmayne.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Last year 5,250 people were killed on the roads of Britain—14 people a day, one in every five of them being a young child—and no fewer than 52,360 people were injured. On Christmas Eve we reached the casualty peak with 1,065 people being injured and 24 being killed.
This is a terrible toll, which brings in its train death, injury, excruciating pain and poignant sorrow to those who are bereaved, and we should be failing in our duty if we were not prepared to take what action is open to us to reduce this terrible casualty rôle. It is, therefore, with a sense of urgency that the House and the whole country will tonight listen to the Parliamentary Secretary to hear what are his views and the views of his Department as to the steps to be taken to try to improve the situation. This is a scourge on our national life, and I am sure that none of us are prepared to accept the situation in which we pay such a terrific price in limb, injury and death for modern transport.
Having said that by way of introduction, I want now to pass to one or two suggestions which may be helpful. From now on my remarks and phraseology must be somewhat telegraphic in character. I want first to deal with zebra crossings. Zebra crossings are a definite improvement on the Belisha crossings, but immediate steps should be taken to light them up at night in built-up areas. Experiments are taking place, and I do not think many more will be needed, because at Ealing Broadway the Ministry of Transport have an ideal method of illuminating the crossings at night.
In the interests of safety, and allowing for breaking, 10 yards on either side of the zebra crossing there should be a white line across the road or two signs indicating the approach to a zebra crossing. We ought also to ensure that the road 50 yards on either side of every zebra crossing has a non-skid surface.
There are not enough zebra crossings. Greater discretion ought to be given in this matter to local authorities. It was

wrong to cut down the number of pedestrian crossings by two-thirds. One half would have been sufficient, and I hope this problem will be looked at again.
Where these crossings are more than 30 feet wide, particularly on the main roads where they are most required, I think there should be an island in the centre of the crossing. It is confusing for traffic to have an expanse of over 30 feet with no island in the centre. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary's views on that question will be given to us.
Now we come to the regulations themselves. We are all aware of the Bristol decision. It has proved one of two things, either that the regulations are nebulous and cannot be properly understood; or that the decision of the court was wrong. At an early stage this House, the country and the public at large should have an assurance of a re-definition of these regulations from the Minister of Transport.
Next there is the matter of the lighting of roads not only on the main roads but on what are colloquially termed "back doubles," in other words, those secondary roads which enable people to avoid the traffic lights and the main road traffic. It is on that form of secondary road that there are many fatal accidents, and it is on these roads that the lighting is very often poor, the siting of poles bad and the wattage of the lamps insufficient.
The Minister must exert pressure on local authorities to have a complete examination of the lighting system in their streets, and on those roads over which the Minister has control he should give a Departmental instruction for the lighting to come up to a certain standard. I am going to give the Minister credit for one thing. He has done it on Hendon Way, though he had a fight. I do not want to go into the matter of the Chatham disaster, but lighting was in some way responsible for that accident, and, therefore, I hope that attention is going to be given to this.
We then come to another question, which is probably outside the scope of the hon. Gentleman's Department, but it is certainly not outside the scope of the Government, and that is the question of capital allocations to local authorities for the purposes of getting non-skid surfaces on our main roads. There are still wooden blocks in the centre of London,


and on many roads there are non-asphalt surfaces which are a positive danger to the motorist when braking on a wet evening.
I also want to raise this question of the 30-mile limit. A 30-mile limit ought to be rigidly imposed in all urban areas even where there are arterial roads, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the North Circular Road in the Borough of Willesden where I live. In a previous Parliament it was the subject of an Adjournment debate. It is a non-restricted road. It has a double carriage way, and on that road there are two schools, factories on either side, a public library and two council housing estates. It is a veritable death trap, and parts of it not within the Borough of Willesden, where there is not the same amount of use by pedestrians, are restricted.
Such is the density of traffic on the North Circular Road that at Neasden Circus four policemen escort the people across the road at certain times because of the build-up arising from the density of traffic. That is not a waste of a policeman at all, and I pay tribute to the local inspector for realising the danger at that point.
The situation on the North Circular Road at peak hours is nothing short of criminal. There should be a far more rigid enforcement of the speed limit. Private coaches are notorious offenders. Motorised police ought to take immediate action by summoning the drivers concerned. The 30-mile limit was instituted for the safety of pedestrians and indeed of the motorists.
Look at the newspaper vans. I am amazed, because the Press are generally excellent in drawing the attention of the public to the necessity of safety on the roads and many newspapers run safety campaigns. Anyone who drives around London knows that many newspaper vans do not keep to the 30-mile limit. The reason is not that newspaper van drivers are bad, or the accident rate would probably be higher. Some of the newspaper managements want to look at the schedules for taking papers from newspaper offices to the stations. I had experience in the previous Government in regard to Post Office mail bags. I was very much concerned whether sufficient

time was allowed to get the mails from the depots to the stations. I plead with the Press to have a look at this problem.
I want the Minister to stop lorry drivers and owners of lorries from carrying overhanging loads, like steel girders and long poles which protrude from the rear of the vehicle, often obscuring the rear light. All there is by way of warning is a bit of red or white handkerchief, or a piece of paper tied to the load. Regulations ought to be used to prevent lorries from having overhanging loads.
There is the question of play streets, and I want to pay a tribute to Salford and Keighley where certain streets are barred to motor traffic. That idea can be extended and I suggest that the Ministry ought to do something in this matter. On the provision of guard rails, I suggest that they are in many cases responsible for accidents. The Minister knows Golders Green; let him cross, but not on the zebra crossing, until he sees a bus coming out of the yard and has to dash for it to get to the rails. He will find that the rails are too close to the edge of the pavement. They ought to be put back a certain distance.
I want to raise another point. Has the Minister consulted the Home Secretary as to the need for sending out a circular to magistrates about imposing stiff penalties on people convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor car? That ought to be done. It is not for me to suggest what the penalty should be, although I do know—and I am not a lawyer—that it is possible even under existing laws to disqualify a person from driving for life if he has been found drunk in charge of a lethal machine such as a motor car. That also ought to be done.
Another thing that ought to be looked at is the road-worthiness of vehicles. It is possible for the Minister under his regulations to insist that road vehicles have a certain mechanical standard. I am talking about brake drums. Public vehicles are good and so are heavy road transport, but many of the "C" licence vans we see on the road are not up to standard. We only need to see them try to pull up to realise that there ought to be a standard of road-worthiness.
I want to give the hon. Gentleman time to reply and having been somewhat critical as well as, I hope, a little helpful, I shall finish on a note of praise, partitularly


of the police of this country and of the school teachers in the work they are doing in educating children in curb drill. It is money well spent by the Metropolitan Police and the other police forces of the country. Unquestionably it has resulted in the casualties not being higher than they are now.
Finally, all of us, if we are men at all, and many of us who are parents, feel strongly about this matter. I know the hon. Gentleman who will reply does, and therefore I await with interest to hear what he proposes to do to deal with this terrible scourge of the road.

10.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) has, with the greatest moderation, raised a question of first-class importance, as the House will recognise. May I say at once that I do not propose to lean with any comfort at all on the fact that the December road accident figures were lower than November or, indeed, that they compare favourably with the year 1938. The problem is one of immense gravity, causing anxiety not only to our Department but to the public. Like the remarks of the hon. Gentleman my reply will have to be telescopic, if not telegraphic in character, and if I do not cover every point, I hope he will acquit me of discourtesy.
I propose to take the main points of the hon. Gentleman and use these as tributaries flowing into the main stream of prevention and remedial action. I will begin with the children. I was glad to hear the tribute which the hon. Gentleman paid in his closing remarks. Education in the schools on road safety drill is yielding unmistakably satisfactory results. A generation is now emerging which sets a good example to its elders, and the House will be glad to know that the adult patrols at school crossings are already proving their value. Accidents are negligible where they are operating and discussions are now proceeding between my hon. Friend, the Minister of Education and the Home Secretary with a view to expanding the present London system all over the country.
It is, therefore, disappointing to find that accidents to children are not falling in volume. I think the explanation may well lie in the increased younger school

population which we now have, the consequence of the 1944 to 1947 bulge in the birth rate. Moreover there is—and this I deplore more than anything else I shall say about this problem—a distressingly large number of casualties amongst children who are below school age and who stray into the road. I therefore take this opportunity of appealing to mothers, despite their many preoccupations—and we all know what they are—to exercise the greatest care and attention over the very young.
I turn now to density of traffic. Pilot investigations taken by the Ministry show that there is today an increase in the order of between 10 and 15 per cent. over pre-war in traffic density. Accidents, however, have not increased, and despite a present tendency to rise, which the hon. Member stressed, are in fact 7 per cent. below 1938. I repeat that that is no reason for complacency, but it is at least some satisfaction to know that they have not risen in proportion to the growth of traffic, although the number of commercial vehicles has risen—I was going to say almost out of proportion—certainly very considerably over pre-war days.
I shall use most of my time in speaking of the methods we propose to adopt to tackle this problem. Subways and over-bridges are a great advantage to the pedestrian, but the cost is formidable and, alas, they are not often utilised, even when they have been constructed.
I come next to the 30 miles an hour restriction in built-up areas. The hon. Member gave an example of the North Circular Road. I have four examples: the Kingston By-Pass, the Birmingham-Wolverhampton Road, the Nottingham Ring Road—I did not want to stay in London all the time—and the Great Western Road at Glasgow. All these were built specially to relieve older congested routes, and it would be a mistake to restrict, even where they are partially or wholly built-up, and for this reason.

Mr. Hobson: rose—

Mr. Braithwaite: I am sorry—I have to go very quickly.
Usually, these roads provide a longer route in point of distance, circling around congested areas, and if speed restrictions were imposed traffic would tend to flow back to its original channels, thus increasing the heavy accident rates on the old routes.
As regards maintenance, the average age of vehicles is much higher now than pre-war, and however carefully vehicles are maintained, it seems likely that the risk of accident is greater than if they had been replaced by new and modern successors. Increased inspection would require more skilled manpower than is at present available, and consideration on these lines must be put on one side while the re-armament programme is in progress. I use this occasion, however, to remind vehicle owners of their duty in this respect, and, in particular, of the maintenance of their brakes in proper condition.
Now I turn to the methods we have in mind of improving the position. I welcome this opportunity of saying something about Zebra crossings, beginning with their legality, about which, as the hon. Gentleman said, there has been some dispute. A crossing is legal if it is marked with stripes, beacons and studs in accordance with the new Pedestrian Crossing Regulations and is included in a scheme of pedestrian crossings duly approved by the Minister of Transport under Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and still in force, although on trunk roads a crossing does not need to be included in a scheme. Another exception is that certain crossings in the London area were authorised under Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and are also legal.
But some confusion has arisen because local authorities were asked to amend their schemes to give effect to the reduction in number when the new regulations came into operation as from 31st October last. However, the new regulations, which prescribe the new Zebra markings and the new rules for precedence, do not in themselves in any way affect the validity of crossings schemes.

Mr. Hobson: Good.

Mr. Braithwaite: Although, therefore, there may be several instances up and down the country where local authorities are amending their schemes, and either have not yet submitted them or received approval for them, this does not in any way affect the existence or legality of their previous schemes, and those are, therefore, still in force. A few technical difficulties have come to light in the application of the new Regulations and to cover these my hon. Friend

proposes to make amending regulations. These will be designed to provide for four things: first, greater tolerance in the prescribed markings to cover crossings of irregular shape, such as those at bell mouthed junctions; secondly, an amended description of the markings to allow more space between the rows of studs and the end of the stripes; this is necessary where stripes are laid down by mechanical means; thirdly, power to the Minister to authorise wider crossings in certain cases; and fourthly, the exemption of bicycles from the prohibition of waiting imposed on vehicles within 45 feet. The drafting of the necessary regulations is now completed and they will be laid before the House at an early date.
As hon. Members will have read in the Press, experiments have recently been carried out at Lewisham with a view to improving lighting these crossings at night. One example—and I hope the House will not misinterpret the adjective, is the "blinking beacon." A report has reached the Department regarding researches in various parts of the country and my hon. Friend will give it careful consideration.
I feel bound to pay a tribute to the police. I am not here thinking of the enforcement of the law by prosecution, but rather of the helpful contribution to safety which they make by their supremely good example as drivers and by the friendly guidance given by those known to us as courtesy cops. The well known pre-war experiments established beyond doubt the way in which accidents can be cut down by putting mobile police patrols on the roads and my hon. Friend is considering with the Home Secretary what can be done to increase these patrols. This would in our view be the biggest single step which could be taken towards reducing road casualties.
Alas, the present need for economy in investment and Government expenditure means that we cannot afford to spend on physical safety measures anything approaching what we would like to spend. In spite of these difficulties, my hon. Friend has managed to secure the Chancellors' agreement to inclusion in the Estimates to be submitted to Parliament very shortly of just over £1 million to be spent from the Road Fund in the


coming financial year for the purpose of helping small schemes of special benefit to road safety. Taken together with rate-borne expenditure this should enable a total amount of £1½ million to be incurred on such schemes in the financial year 1952–3. We shall concentrate on schemes designed to remedy black accident spots, and which are designed to secure the quickest returns for the outlay, and I may inform the. House that this is the first time we have been able to obtain funds solely for this purpose of cleaning up the black spots.
During last month I had the opportunity of meeting a considerable number of road safety committees in the West of England and South Wales to hear their views and discuss their problems. The House would wish to express its appreciation of all those who voluntarily and without financial reward devote so much time to this vital task which after all can best be performed through local initiative and contribution.
Finally, may I remind the hon. Member that when he sat over here as Assistant Postmaster-General and I once raised on the Adjournment what I believed to be a flaw in the Departmental administration of the Post Office he was so unkind as to accuse me of conducting a vendetta? I remained unwounded as the matter was quickly rectified, but now I turn the other cheek and thank him for raising this matter and giving me an opportunity of making this statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: In the draft Regulations, will there be a paragraph which will define pedestrians responsibilities in the use of pedestrian crossings?

Mr. Braithwaite: May I look at that?

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.